599 ftp

Age, work experience, and thepsychological contract

THOMAS W. H. NG1* AND DANIEL C. FELDMAN2

1The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong2The University of Georgia, Georgia

Summary The purpose of the current paper is to examine the ways in which age and work experienceshape how individuals experience psychological contract breaches. We first introduce theconcepts of contract malleability (the degree to which individuals can tolerate deviations fromcontract expectations) and contract replicability (the degree to which individuals believe thattheir psychological contracts can be replicated elsewhere). Next, we discuss the variety ofreasons why contract malleability and replicability become greater with age and workexperience and how contract malleability and replicability may temper negative reactionsto psychological contract breaches. We also address the different ways contract malleabilityand replicability mediate the relationships between age and work experience, on one hand, andexit, voice, loyalty, and neglect behaviors on the other. We consider the moderating effects ofage similarity and dissimilarity here as well. The paper concludes with a discussion of theimplications for future research designs and for managing older and more experiencedworkers. Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction

Psychological contracts are critical in understanding how individuals experience their employment

relationships (Shore & Barksdale, 1998). Psychological contracts consist of employees’ expectations

about what they owe their employers and about what their employers owe them in return (Rousseau,

1989, 1995). Because of their impact on the quality of employment relationships, psychological

contracts have received a great deal of attention from researchers, particularly on how they are formed,

developed, and broken (Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Robinson, Kraatz, & Rousseau, 1994).

With some exceptions (e.g., Turnley & Feldman, 1998), most of the research on psychological

contracts has focused on relatively young employees and those with relatively little work experience.

Researchers have largely honed in on the unmet expectations that younger workers experience when

they first enter the labor market (Webber, 1976). In the 1980s and 1990s, in particular, researchers were

especially attuned to ways in which fewer guarantees of lifetime job security, greater feelings of

entitlement among new graduates, and greater awareness of ‘‘boundaryless careers’’ led to widespread

Journal of Organizational Behavior

J. Organiz. Behav. 30, 1053–1075 (2009)

Published online 10 March 2009 in Wiley InterScience

(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.599

*Correspondence to: Thomas W. H. Ng, School of Business and Economics, The University of Hong Kong, Pok Fu Lam, HongKong. E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 21 February 2008Revised 30 November 2008Accepted 13 January 2009

perceptions of psychological contract violations among young workers (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996;

Robinson, 1996; Robinson & Morrison, 1995).

In contrast, there has been little theoretical work on how and why age and work experience influence

the ways in which employees react to psychological contract breaches. Such research, however, is

timely and important given that the largest segment of world’s working population today is the age 40–

44 cohort (International Labor Organization, 2005). We propose here that age and work experience

may temper the intensity of reactions to psychological contract violations and the ways in which

workers respond to those violations. For instance, empirical research has demonstrated that, as people

age, there are significant changes in their self-concepts, emotional intensity, social interaction patterns,

altruistic attitudes and behaviors, life goals, and coping strategies (Heckhausen & Brim, 1997;

Lebouvie-Vief & De Voe, 1991; Steverink & Lindenberg, 2006; Underwood & Moore, 1982). These

changes, when taken together, affect the ways employees develop job expectations and react when

those expectations are unmet.

The purpose of this theoretical paper, then, is to consider how age and work experience affect

reactions to psychological contract breaches. We introduce two new concepts to explain this

phenomenon, namely, contract malleability and contract replicability. Contract malleability refers to

the degree of tolerance an employee has for unfulfilled promises, while contract replicability refers to

how likely the current psychological contract could be replicated in the open labor market. We propose

that the psychosocial changes brought about by aging and the accumulation of more work experience

alter individuals’ beliefs about contract malleability and contract replicability, which in turn affect the

ways employees react to breaches of psychological contracts.

Theoretical Background

Age

Who is considered an ‘‘older worker’’ has been debated in the literature for quite some time. In the

retirement literature, older workers are often identified as having reached retirement age or by years

needed to reach retirement age (Beehr, 1986). Using the U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act

of 1967 as a guide, Ng and Feldman’s (2008) recent review defines older workers as those who are age

40 or older.

However, as Cleveland and Shore (1992) note, age can be defined in terms of an employee’s

chronological age, the employee’s subjective age (the individual’s self-perception of age), the

employee’s social age (others’ perceptions of the employee’s age), and the employee’s relative age

(degree to which the individual is older than others in the work group). Thus, the meaning of ‘‘old’’

depends, to some extent, on the demographic profiles of the organization or occupation (Shore,

Cleveland, & Goldberg, 2003).

Age is a continuous variable and, in this paper, we do not adopt a specific cutoff age for defining older

workers. Instead, we examine the aging process across a wide age range for two reasons. First, because

aging does not start and stop at one particular point in time, there is no obvious cut-off when the effects

of aging on work behavior would stop, either. Second, as the average age of the world’s working

population today continues to increase and more and more individuals continue to work after typical

retirement ages (e.g., 8% of the American workforce is above the age of 60; International Labor

Organization, 2005), the issues surrounding age in the workplace affect a much larger and broader

segment of the population. Indeed, with the largest segment of theworking population now aged 40–44,

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 30, 1053–1075 (2009)

DOI: 10.1002/job

1054 T. W. H. NG AND D. C. FELDMAN

the mean of the entire working population would be considered ‘‘older workers’’ if the conventional

age-40 cutoff were used.

Age similarity

In addition to chronological age, wewill also be examining age similarity between a worker and his/her

colleagues. Previous research on relational demography has suggested that whether one has the same

demographic characteristics as other individuals in the work group might also be a key determinant of

perceptions about work (Riordan & Shore, 1997). For example, when an individual is older than most

of the others at work, she/he may have poorer work attitudes and receive less favorable treatment from

others because of a ‘‘homophily bias’’ (Milliken & Martins, 1996). Conversely, when individuals are

working with peoplewho are similar in age to themselves, they might havemore positive perceptions of

themselves and their work environments (Cleveland & Shore, 1992).

Work experience

Work experience is the amount of job-related experience an individual has accumulated over the course

of his/her career (Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998). Quinones, Ford, and Teachout (1995: 890) suggest that work

experience consists of ‘‘events that are experienced by an individual that relate to the performance of

some job.’’ In general, then, older workers will also be more experienced workers.

However, while age and work experience are positively correlated, they are theoretically distinct

constructs. The process of aging typically refers to physiological changes, underlying changes in

emotions, and changes in psychosocial needs across an individual’s lifespan (Avolio & Waldman,

1994). These changes affect most domains of an individual’s life. In contrast, the accumulation of work

experience is more likely to influence cognitive and affective reactions to the workplace specifically

(Forteza & Prieto, 1994). Moreover, given the changing shape of career paths, some older individuals

might have very little work experience in an industry if they have had multiple careers in multiple fields

(Arthur & Rousseau, 1996). Thus, the amount of work experience is not necessarily commensurate

with chronological age.

Psychological contracts

Psychological contracts consist of employees’ beliefs regarding the mutual obligations between them

and their employers (Rousseau, 1989, 1995). Stated differently, psychological contracts consist of

employees’ beliefs regarding what employers owe them and what they owe their employers in turn. For

example, employers provide inducements (e.g., pay) to encourage employees to exert maximum effort

and to stay with those employers (Lambert, Edwards, & Cable, 2003; Turnley & Feldman, 2000).

Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) suggests that reciprocity is an important characteristic of social

relationships. Individuals who perceive that they are valued and respected are likely to reciprocate with

trust and emotional engagement in social exchanges. Thus, when organizations demonstrate care and

support for employees by fulfilling their obligations to them, employees are likely to reciprocate with

favorable job attitudes, job performance, and citizenship behaviors (Coyle-Shapiro & Conway, 2005).

These promises and reciprocal obligations underlie the nature and strength of employment

relationships (Shore & Barksdale, 1998).When employees define and interpret their obligations strictly

and view the employment relationship in purely short-term economic terms, psychological contracts


DOI: 10.1002/job

AGE, WORK EXPERIENCE, AND THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT 1055

are referred to as transactional in nature (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994). Relational contracts, on the

other hand, are said to exist when employees define and interpret their obligations openly and broadly.

With relational contracts, individuals view employment as a socially-satisfying exchange relationship

and take a long-term orientation to it (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994).

Contract breaches

Psychological contract breaches occur when employees perceive that their employers have failed to

fulfill at least one obligation or promise implied by their employers (Morrison & Robinson, 1997;

Restubog, Bordia, & Tang, 2006; Turnley, Bolino, Lester, & Bloodgood, 2003). In some cases, these

breaches consist of non-fulfillment of promises (e.g., not receiving a promotion). In other cases, these

breaches consist of delays in fulfilling promises (e.g., deferring a pay raise by 6 months). While some

recent research has begun to examine situations in which employers over-fulfill their obligations (e.g.,

Lambert et al., 2003; Turnley et al., 2003), the predominant focus in this stream of research has been on

the under-fulfillment of obligations. That will be the major focus of this paper as well.

When breaches occur, employees are more likely to see themselves in a state of inequity. To restore

this equity, employees may reduce their loyalty and trust, withdraw their efforts and contributions, and

in extreme cases, retaliate against their employers (Turnley et al., 2003). In fact, empirical research

over the past decade has found that psychological contract breaches are negatively related to employee

job satisfaction, trust, organizational commitment, job performance, and citizenship behavior, while

being positively related to employee cynicism, absenteeism, and turnover (Bunderson, 2001; Conway

& Briner, 2002; Deery, Iverson, & Walsh, 2006; Johnson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003; Pugh, Skarlicki, &

Passell, 2003; Sutton & Griffin, 2004).

Previous research suggests that breaches of promises on the part of employers are quite widespread.

For instance, Robinson et al. (1994) observed that 55% of their managerial respondents reported their

employers had, at some time, violated their psychological contract in terms of providing training,

compensation, benefits, promotions, and job security. Similarly, Turnley and Feldman (1998) found

that 25% of their sample reported that they had received less than what they had been promised by their

employers.

Breach severity

The weight of the empirical evidence suggests that the greater the level of contract breach, the more

negative employee reactions are (Morrison & Robinson, 1997). Empirical measures of psychological

contract breaches have largely focused on the global perceptions of breaches (Robinson & Morrison,

2000) or the number of contract elements that have been breached (Turnley & Feldman, 1999). Much

less attention has been paid, though, to the differences between reactions to breaches of central,

important contract elements and reactions to breaches of peripheral, less critical contract elements.

To broaden the existing perspective on contract breaches, we include another concept here called

breach severity. Breach severity is the extent to which employees perceive that the most important

promises in their psychological contracts have gone unfulfilled. In other words, a severe contract breach

occurs when firms fail to fulfill their promises on contract elements that employees value the most. Our

premise is that the more severe the breach, the more likely employees are to react intensely and

negatively.

It is important to note here that individuals will vary in terms of what they consider severe breaches,

and those assessments might be based on qualitative as well as quantitative grounds. For instance, a


DOI: 10.1002/job


breach of a pay raise of $5,000 may be seen as severe for a blue-collar worker but minor for an

executive. Similarly, a breach of a promise for flexible scheduling may be seen as severe for working

parents but as minor for other employees. Therefore, breach severity is conceptually distinct from the

general perceptions of whether organizations have fulfilled their promises. Instead, it focuses on

employee perceptions about the fulfillment of promises they value most.

Theoretical Model

The key proposed relationships are displayed in Figure 1. In the sections below, we explain these

proposed relationships in more detail. As noted above, breach severity has an impact on how strongly

employees reciprocate negatively when they experience contract breaches. However, how employees

respond to breaches will also depend upon how much they can tolerate deviations from expectations

and how readily they perceive they could find equal (or better) deals elsewhere. To address these issues,

we introduce the constructs of contract malleability and contract replicability. We also propose that

both age and work experiences influence contract malleability and contract replicability.

Contract malleability

Definition

Contract malleability refers to the extent to which employees can tolerate deviations from expectations

without reciprocating negatively in turn. In other words, employees vary in the extent to which they can

tolerate deviations in contract fulfillment without perceiving the psychological contract as violated.

Consistent with the scope of breach severity, employees may be able to tolerate some unfulfilled

promises but not others or tolerate unfulfilled promises to a greater or lesser degree. The tolerance of an

employee for deviations from expectations, aggregated across psychological contract elements,

contributes to his or her global perceptions of contract malleability.

Figure 1. The proposed theoretical model


DOI: 10.1002/job


We expect that, some employees, such as those who have high organizational identity, may take

contract violations in stride and realize that, as organizations change, their expectations may have to

change as well. For instance, these employees may find it acceptable that a pay raise of 5% is deferred

for 6 months because of significant profit declines. In contrast, other employees may have little or no

tolerance for deviations from expectations. For example, some employees who have been promised a

5% pay raise in January may conclude there has been a serious contract breach when the organization

phases in the pay raise, giving half effective January 1 and half effective June 1. These employees

would argue that a promise is a promise and, once extended, cannot be unilaterally altered.

Differences from related constructs

It is important to note here that contract malleability is conceptually distinct from equity sensitivity.

Equity sensitivity is an individual difference that characterizes how sensitive people are to under-

reward and over-reward situations (Huseman, Hatfield, & Miles, 1987). Contract malleability, on the

other hand, does not address whether or not a breach has occurred, but rather the individual’s degree of

tolerance after a breach has occurred (or is believed to occur). Furthermore, while we expect that

contract malleability will be affected, in part, by personality traits, it is also likely to be heavily

influenced by situational factors, too. For instance, Pugh et al. (2003) observed that psychological

contract breaches with previous employers contributed to employees’ cynicism about new and future

employment relationships. That is, employees who feel they have been burned before in terms of

receiving unfair treatment are likely to have unmalleable expectations going forward.

Contract malleability is also conceptually distinct from transactional and relational psychological

contracts. While transactional and relational contracts address the nature of obligations (e.g., short-

term vs. long-term) (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994), contract malleability addresses individuals’ degree

of tolerance when those obligations are unmet. We do expect, though, that the nature of obligations

prescribed by transactional or relational contracts may determine individuals’ levels of contract

malleability. Those individuals who have relational contracts might be willing to tolerate contract

violations because of the expectation that the employment relationship is going to be long-term and

disappointments will ultimately be reversed. Conversely, those who view the employment relationship

as transactional in nature might have little tolerance for contract violations since their time-frame for

recouping perceived losses is much shorter.

Relationship to outcome variables

We propose here that different levels of contract malleability will lead to different outcomes when

psychological contract breaches occur. To the extent that employees can tolerate deviations from

expectations, unfulfilled promises on the part of the organization will be less likely to lead to negative

reactions from employees. These employees may be more psychologically prepared for the occurrence

of psychological contract breaches and/or morewilling to make external attributions about their causes.

Because of this willingness to tolerate deviations from expectations, employees who view their

contracts as malleable are likely to respond less intensely even when faced with severe contract

breaches. Conversely, employees who perceive their psychological contracts as unmalleable are more

likely to view these breaches as purposeful, intentional, and personal. Thus, we propose that

perceptions of contract malleability will moderate the relationships between breach severity and

negative employee reactions.

Proposition 1: Individuals who perceive their psychological contracts as highly malleable will react

less negatively to severe contract breaches than will individuals who view their contracts as

unmalleable.


DOI: 10.1002/job


Contract replicability

Definition

Because psychological contracts have been viewed primarily as social exchanges between participants

in the same organization, relatively little attention has been paid to whether employees view their

psychological contracts as replicable in other organizations. That is, employees may believe some

aspects of their psychological contracts (e.g., work hours) are more readily replicable than other

promises over the others (e.g., training, development, and promotion opportunities). The aggregation of

these beliefs about replicability, across the array of psychological contract elements, contributes to

employees’ global perceptions of contract replicability.

As careers become characterized by greater job mobility (Cavanaugh & Noe, 1999; Sullivan, 1999),

however, perceptions about the external market may increasingly influence perceptions of current

psychological contracts. Labor statistics show that Baby Boomers in America changed jobs frequently,

holding an average of 10 jobs from the ages of 18 to 38 (US Department of Labor, 2004). Longitudinal

studies of job attitudes have also shown that there is a tendency for organizational commitment to

decline as organizational tenure increases (Bentein, Vandenberg, Vandenberghe, & Stinglhamber,

2005; Lance, Vandenberg, & Self, 2000). Collectively, the research evidence suggests that more

employees are loosening their bonds to their employers over time.

Here we argue that employees’ perceptions of their ‘‘deals’’ as rare in the external labor market will

influence how individuals will react to breaches. While social exchange theory focuses on reciprocity

for past contributions, relative deprivation theory suggests that employees also use other standards to

judge the fairness of their employment arrangements (Feldman, Leana, & Turnley, 1997). The seminal

work on relative deprivation (Crosby, 1982, 1984) suggests that individuals’ satisfaction with their job

situations also depends on what employees want and feel entitled to. Consequently, perceptions of the

external labor market come into play in the assessments of psychological contracts ex post, even if they

do not come into play in the development of those contracts ex ante.

Differences from related constructs

Contract replicability is different from idiosyncratic deals (‘‘I-deals’’), which are voluntary,

personalized agreements that are negotiated between individual employees and their employers and not

available to other coworkers (Rousseau, Ho, & Greenberg, 2006). They are geared to specific

individuals’ needs, often addressing non-standard work arrangements or benefits typically absent from

formal employment contracts (e.g., telecommuting opportunities or special promotion tracks)

(Hornung, Rousseau, & Glaser, 2008; Miner, 1987). Therefore, idiosyncratic deals address the

differences in psychological contracts across coworkers or peers whereas contract replicability

addresses the differences between one’s current psychological contract and what is perceived to be

available in the external market.

Contract replicability is also different from perceived job alternatives. The concept of perceived job

alternatives is typically viewed as the probability of being able to get another job in the external labor

market (Thau, Bennett, Stahlberg, & Werner, 2004). In contrast, contract replicability refers to employee

perceptions about the likelihood of getting the same (or better) psychological contract elsewhere. Thus,

individuals may believe they could find alternative jobs elsewhere, but not be able to get the same kind

of deal they have elsewhere (in terms of mentoring, training, scheduling flexibility, etc.).

Like contract malleability, contract replicability is conceptually distinct from transactional and

relational psychological contracts. Transactional and relational psychological contracts address the

nature of obligations between two key parties (employees and employers) (Robinson & Rousseau,

1994). In contrast, contract replicability addresses exchanges among three key parties: Employees

themselves, current employers, and potential employers elsewhere. Further, transactional and


DOI: 10.1002/job


relational contracts focus on present and past fulfillment of obligations from the current employer. In

contrast, replicability focuses on other employers’ ability to fulfill individuals’ expectations in the future.

The nature of obligations (transactional or relational contracts), though, may partially influence

individuals’ levels of contract replicability. We propose that individuals who believe that their

relationships with current employers involve open and long-term obligations would be less likely to

feel they could replicate the quality of those employment relationships elsewhere (i.e., with the same

degree of mutual trust and emotional engagement). On the other hand, we suggest that individuals who

have transactional contracts might be more likely to believe that their current employment

relationships, which involve short-term and clearly specified obligations (Robinson & Rousseau,

1994), reflect standard practices in the industry. As a result, they would be more likely to perceive that

their psychological contracts would be readily replicable elsewhere.

Relationship to outcome variables

Employees are likely to react particularly positively when organizations offer them inducements that

are unique and non-replicable in the external market (Hornung et al., 2008). However, non-replicable

contracts can be a double-edged sword, since employees with these contracts may react particularly

negatively when these unique employment deals are breached.

First, we expect that individuals will be especially disappointed that they are not receiving the rare

resources and rewards they have been promised, particularly since the promise of those rare resources

and rewards might have swayed them to join the organization in the first place. Second, employees will

be especially discouraged about the probability of being able to rectify these contract breaches simply

by going elsewhere since, by definition, these deals would be very hard to find in the external market.

Third, non-fulfillment of the unique parts of their psychological contracts may make employees more

pessimistic that even the ‘‘ordinary’’ elements of their contracts will be honored.

Thus, we propose that perceptions of contract replicability will moderate the relationships between

breach severity and negative employee reactions. Those relationships will be stronger when employees

view their psychological contracts as non-replicable in the external labor market. When breach severity

is high, employees who view their contracts as non-replicable will respond particularly intensely.

Proposition 2: Individuals who perceive their psychological contracts as non-replicable will react

more negatively to severe contract breaches than will individuals who view their psychological

contracts as replicable.

The impact of age and work experience on contract malleability

Age and contract malleability

We propose that, as individuals age, they will perceive that their psychological contracts are more

malleable. As we discuss below in more detail, these shifts occur as the result of changing emotions and

social relationships.

Emotions

As individuals grow older, the emotions they experience—and the intensity of those emotions—also

change. More specifically, researchers have found that, over the lifespan, individuals’ emotional

reactions tend to become less intense (Gross, Carstensen, Pasupathi, Tsai, Skorpen, & Hsu, 1997;

Lawton, Kleban, Rajagopal, & Dean, 1992; Lebouvie-Vief & De Voe, 1991; Lebouvie-Vief, Hakim-

Larson, De Voe, & Schoeberlein, 1989). Further, empirical studies have shown that older adults are

better able to understand and control their emotions. For instance, Lawton et al. (1992) sampled three


DOI: 10.1002/job


large groups of healthy adults about their emotional experiences. These authors found that, compared

with younger adults (aged 18–29), middle-aged (30–59), and older adults (60 or above) demonstrated a

greater ability to regulate emotions. Similarly, Chapman and Hayslip (2006) found that older adults

(mean age¼ 49), when compared to younger adults (mean age¼ 20), were more likely to use optimism

as a strategy to regulate their emotions.

In addition, older adults are more likely to process positive emotional information more deeply than

negative emotional information. For instance, older adults (62 or above) recall more positive than

negative information when compared to young adults (below age 39) (Lockenhoff & Carstensen,

2007). Thomas and Hasher (2006) have also found that, compared to young adults (aged 18–28), older

individuals (60 or above) are more likely to cognitively strengthen positive information in memory and

diminish negative information in memory. These results have even been indirectly supported by brain

imaging research, which shows that extreme negative images cause much stronger brain activity in

young adults (aged 19–21) than do extreme positive images (Wood & Kisley, 2006). Because older

employees have a stronger ability to regulate emotions and to process positive information more

deeply, we expect that they will also be able to tolerate deviations from expectations better.

Social interactions

Older adults, as a group, also strive for strong interpersonal relationships (Sorkin & Rook, 2006). Ryff

(1989) has observed that both middle-aged adults (mean age¼ 53) and older adults (mean age¼ 74)

rate quality social relationship as critical to well-being. For many older adults, having quality social

relationships with spouses, family, and friends is key to making the transition to the old age, largely

because these social relationships offer fulfillment of their needs for status and affection (Steverink &

Lindenberg, 2006). In contrast, younger employees appear to place more importance on work-life

balance, opportunities to develop skills, and pay linked to individual performance (Finegold,

Mohrman, & Spreitzer, 2002).

Moreover, when compared to young adults, older adults are less likely to have problems with social

relationships (Birditt & Fingerman, 2005). For instance, researchers have found that middle-aged (40–

59) subjects reported less intense emotional reactions to tense social situations than did younger

subjects (25–39). Similarly, adults age 60 and older reported less intense emotional reactions compared

to middle-aged subjects (Birditt, Fingerman, & Almeida, 2005). In another study, Birditt and

Fingerman (2003) examined differences across five cohorts (13–16, 20–29, 40–49, 60–69, 80, and

above). They found that older cohorts were more likely to remain loyal to relationships in tense

interpersonal situations than were their younger counterparts. Erber, Szuchman, and Prager (2001) also

found that older adults (56 or above) are typically more forgiving of misconduct than are younger adults

(aged 18–36).

Carstensen (1991) uses a ‘‘socioemotional selectivity perspective’’ to explain these findings.

Specifically, she suggests that, as people increasingly realize that their time on earth is finite, they focus

more on the enjoyment of social relationships than on utilitarian activities like acquiring money.

Empirical studies also provide support for this socioemotional selectivity perspective. For instance,

adult development research has shown that as people age, they tend to become more altruistic,

generous, and better able to understand the perspectives of others (Midlarsky & Hannah, 1989;

Underwood &Moore, 1982). Taken all together, then, the evidence suggests that age will be positively

related to contract malleability.

Proposition 3a: Age and perceptions of contract malleability are positively related.


DOI: 10.1002/job


The moderating role of age similarity

While perceptions of contract malleability are likely to increase with aging, the extent of that growth

may depend upon the degree of age dissimilarity between a focal employee and his/her colleagues.

When an individual is older than most of his/her co-workers, she/he occupies a minority status within

the group (Riordan & Shore, 1997). This lower status position might influence how relatively older

workers perceive their psychological contracts (Guinote, Brown, & Fiske, 2006; Uotomo, 1986).

Specifically, we suggest that older workers who are age-dissimilar from their colleagues will view their

psychological contracts as more malleable than older employees working with similarly-aged

colleagues.

As noted before, older workers tend to have a more positive emotional outlook and a stronger

preference for social relationships, both of which contribute to higher perceptions of contract

malleability. These psychosocial changes brought by aging may be intensified when an older

individuals work with age-dissimilar employees. For example, research on learned helplessness

suggests that minorities, who have been previously exposed to more uncontrollable conditions, learn to

react less intensely to adverse stimuli (Garber & Seligman, 1980). Thus, older individuals in age-

dissimilar environments may have even less intense emotional responses to unfulfilled promises.

In addition, cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957) would predict that relatively older

workers, who feel insufficiently powerful to demand contract fulfillment, may start viewing their

psychological contracts as more malleable instead. Because older workers value social relationships,

they are less confrontational when faced with adversity (Birditt & Fingerman, 2005) and are more

likely to adjust their goals to suit the circumstances (Brandstadter & Renner, 1990). As a result, older

workers in age-dissimilar environments may accept their minority status more readily.

Therefore, we suggest that individuals who are chronologically old and are relatively older than most

of their colleagues will react less intensely to psychological contract breaches than older individuals

working with age-similar colleagues. That is, age dissimilarity will moderate the relationship between

age and perceptions of contract malleability.

Proposition 3b: Age similarity moderates the relationship between chronological age and contract

malleability. Chronologically older employees who are also relatively older than their colleagues

will be more likely to perceive their contracts as malleable.

Work experience and contract malleability

The accumulation of work experience often reinforces the emotional changes that accompany aging.

For example, job attitudes are usually higher among workers with more work experience, both because

of the greater rewards they receive due to seniority and because their expectations of work become

more realistic over time (Eichar, Brady, & Fortinsky, 1991; Quarstein, McAfee, & Glassman, 1992).

Further, as workers gain more work experience, they become clearer in their own minds about the

tradeoffs they are willing to make to find appropriate careers for themselves. Over time, these ‘‘career

anchors’’ give experienced workers more stability in their career paths, guide them toward work

situations that are more fulfilling, and steer them away from job situations which would be poor fits

(Feldman & Bolino, 1997; Schein, 1990).

In addition, years of full-time work experience tends to lower individuals’ expectations of others.

Early research on realistic job previews (cf. Wanous, 1981) implicitly argued that, as individuals gained

work experience, their perceptions of the work world would become more realistic and change in two


DOI: 10.1002/job


ways. First, greater work experience helps individuals developmore realistic standards of what ‘‘good’’

and ‘‘bad’’ job situations look like. Second, greater work experience inoculates employees from over-

reacting to inevitable disappointments. Therefore, more experienced workers are less likely to be

emotionally disturbed by negative incidents (e.g., delayed pay raises) because they do not perceive the

negative consequences of each and every non-fulfillment as dramatic (Bedeian, Ferris, & Kacmar,

1992). Taken all together, then, the evidence suggests that work experience will also be positively

related to contract malleability.

Proposition 3c: Years of work experience and perceptions of contract malleability are positively

related.

The impact of age and work experience on contract replicability

Age and contract replicability

We propose here that age will be negatively related to perceptions of contract replicability. As we

discuss below in more detail, age-related changes in contract replicability are often tied to age-related

changes in self-efficacy.

Specifically, as individuals reach late middle age, they often have less self-efficacy about their ability

to perform and view themselves as less likely to be successful at work (Heckhausen & Schulz, 1995).

For instance, Brandstadter and Rothermund (1994) observed that, across five age groups (30–35, 36–

41, 42–47, 48–53, 54–59), the oldest group of subjects reported the lowest level of confidence about

their ability to change their environments. In another study, Brandstadter and Renner (1990) found that

there was a general decline in the level of tenacious goal pursuit (called ‘‘assimilative coping’’) and a

general increase in the level of goal adjustment as individuals age (called ‘‘accommodative coping’’).

Rather than holding on to ambitious goals, older workers are more likely to lower their goals downward

to adjust to their circumstances. Because of this weaker self-efficacy, older individuals will be more

likely to believe that their psychological contracts cannot be easily replicated or negotiated in other

organizations.

Empirical research evidence provides some support for the above assertion. For instance, several

researchers have found that, compared with younger employees, older employees (mean age¼ 50) who

have been laid off from similar jobs are more likely to feel dissatisfied with their replacement jobs,

particularly in terms of satisfaction with pay and benefits (Mallinckrodt, 1990). The literature on

underemployment and job loss, too, suggests that older workers, once laid off, are less likely to find re-

employment quickly and are less likely to find the quality replacement jobs their younger colleagues do

(Feldman et al., 1997). Finally, research on age discrimination indicates that older employees are often

stereotyped by others as more rigid, less productive, less interested in keeping up with technology

advancement, less creative, and harder to train (Shore & Goldberg, 2004). For these reasons, then, we

expect that older workers will also have less reason to believe their contracts could be easily replicated

elsewhere.

Proposition 4a: Age and perceptions of contract replicability are negatively related.

The moderating role of age similarity

Age similarity may also moderate the relationship between chronological age and contract

replicability. As noted before, older employees may have less self-efficacy about their ability to

perform well and to find comparable jobs elsewhere. When these individuals are also relatively older


DOI: 10.1002/job


than their colleagues, the declines in their self-efficacy beliefs may be even sharper. For example, Shore

et al. (2003) found that, when employees are older than their managers, both self-rated and manager-

rated promotability and career development assistance given to these employees were lower as well.

Kirchmeyer (1995) also found that employees’ perceptions of age dissimilarity were associated with

perceptions of less job challenge and work group fit. As a result, relatively older workers will be more

pessimistic about being able to find equally good (or better) deals elsewhere.

A major reason why chronologically old employees who are also relatively older than their

colleagues may have lower self-efficacy is the existence of social stereotypes. There has been

considerable research conducted on the extent of age biases and stereotypes in the workplace (Shore &

Goldberg, 2004). Because age is a surface-level characteristic, it can readily evoke stereotypes and

prejudices in others (Harrison, Price, Gavin, & Florey, 1998), especially when older workers are the

minority group (Riordan, Schaffer, & Stewart, 2004). The negative effects of these age stereotypes and

prejudices are likely to be evident in multiple aspects of older workers’ careers, including job

applications, performance evaluations, development opportunities received, and retention (Shore &

Goldberg, 2004). Weiss and Maurer (2004) note that, while recent empirical research finds less

evidence of age discrimination today than 30 years ago, more subtle forms of discrimination may

actually have increased over the years. Chronologically older individuals who are working with

typically younger colleagues are more vulnerable to this stereotyping.

For instance, Sturman (2003) found that the relationship between age and supervisor-rated task

performance followed an inverted-U shape. Age is positively related to task performance for younger

workers, but is negatively related to task performance for older workers. Given there is very little

evidence that cognitive ability declines sharply at middle age (Greller & Simpson, 1999), one

reasonable conclusion is that the curvilinear relationship observed largely reflects age bias against older

adults often held by supervisors (Ferris, Yates, Gilmore, & Rowland, 1985). Therefore, we propose that

older employees who also work in environments with mainly younger workers will particularly

strongly believe that: (a) most organizations prefer to hire young workers, and (b) they will have fewer

employment opportunities in the external labor market themselves as a result (Schindler, Staudinger, &

Nesselroade, 2006).

Proposition 4b: Age similarity moderates the relationship between chronological age and contract

replicability. Chronologically older employees who are also relatively older than their colleagues

will be more likely to perceive their contracts as non-replicable compared to those old employees

who are age similar to their colleagues.

Work experience and contract replicability

We also predict here that individuals with more work experience will perceive their psychological

contracts as less replicable in other organizations. Both the literatures on person–organization fit and

job embeddedness help explain why.

The fit literature suggests that, as individuals accumulate more work experience, they are more likely

to hold positions which are good fits for them, personally and professionally (Schneider, Goldstein, &

Smith, 1995). For example, White and Spector (1987) observed that greater work experience and job

seniority gave employees greater access to better jobs (e.g., job challenge and job security) and greater

mastery of required job duties. Moreover, as employees settle into jobs which are good fits for them,

they are less likely to seek out disconfirming information about their present jobs (Feldman & Bolino,

1997; Schein, 1990). As a result, we expect that employees with greater full-time work experience, job


DOI: 10.1002/job


tenure, and organizational tenure will be less likely to perceive that their psychological contracts are

replicable elsewhere.

Amount of work experience also influences older workers’ perceptions of how readily they could

replicate their current ‘‘deal’’ elsewhere. As the job embeddedness literature suggests, as individuals

gain more and more years of service, they become highly enmeshed in their current organizations

(Crossley, Bennett, Jex, & Burnfield, 2007). Veteran employees develop stronger links to their colleagues,

invest more deeply in their communities, and feel like leaving would create greater financial and personal

sacrifices (Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, & Erez, 2001). As job embeddedness increases and external

mobility decreases, perceptions of contract replicability should weaken, too.

In addition, external employers are more likely to stereotype highly experienced workers as less

mobile and therefore engage in less effort to recruit them. Indeed, there are some elements of truth in

this stereotype because individuals with considerable work experience are, in fact, less willing to move

(Feldman & Ng, 2007). Ultimately, a self-fulfilling prophecy can emerge: Workers who have

substantial work experience are less likely to see their psychological contracts as easily replicable in the

external market, while employers are less likely to recruit highly experienced workers because they

view them as less movable. Thus, we predict:

Proposition 4c: Years of work experience and perceptions of contract replicability are negatively

related.

Contract malleability, contract replicability, and job behaviors

In addition to affecting responses to psychological contract breaches, beliefs about psychological

contracts may also influence employees’ approaches to their work (Shore et al., 2004). Here, we

propose that contract malleability and contract replicability partially mediate the relationships between

age and work experience on one hand and job behaviors on the other hand. That is, some of the impact

of age and work experience on job behaviors is due to their mediating influences on contract

malleability and contract replicability.

In examining employees’ job behaviors, we utilize the EVLN (exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect)

framework originally proposed by Hirshman (1970) and subsequently modified by Rusbult, Farrell,

Rogers, and Mainus (1988). This typology was originally proposed to understand individuals’

responses to declining exchange relationships. As such, this typology should be particularly relevant to

psychological contract research in which the focus is on the nature of the employee–organization

relationships (Turnley & Feldman, 1999). In addition, the EVLN framework has seldom been utilized

to understand how older and more experienced workers might respond to work disappointments and

deteriorating employment relationships. Thus, its use here provides another way of understanding older

employees’ performance in the workplace.

ExitAt its simplest level, exit refers to voluntary turnover. There is a general expectation that older and more

experienced workers prefer stability in their work lives and therefore are less likely to leave their

employers voluntarily (Flaherty & Pappas, 2002). However, the empirical evidence on this point has

been mixed. For instance, in a quantitative review of the age-voluntary turnover relationship, Healy,

Lehman, and McDaniel (1995) conclude that the relationship between age and turnover is near zero.

We propose that older and more experienced individuals will be less likely to leave their employers

because they perceive their contracts as more malleable. Because they view those contracts as more

malleable, they will be less infuriated by unmet expectations at work and therefore be less likely to bolt


DOI: 10.1002/job


when faced with disappointments. Moreover, workers who are relatively older and who have more

work experience may view the chances of replicating their current deals or obtaining the same amount

of rewards in the external labor market as low—and as a result, be less motivated to actively search for

job alternatives (Dalton & Todor, 1993; Turnley & Feldman, 1999). Both contract malleability and

replicability, then, serve as mediating variables in explaining why older and more experienced workers

are less likely to voluntarily leave the organizations.

Proposition 5a: Contract malleability partially mediates the relationships of age and work

experience with organizational exit. That is, part of the negative effect of age and work experience

on organizational exit is due to greater perceptions of contract malleability.

Proposition 5b: Contract replicability partially mediates the relationships of age and work

experience with organizational exit. That is, part of the negative effect of age and work experience

on organizational exit is due to greater perceptions of contracts being non-replicable elsewhere.

Voice

Hirshman (1970) defines voice as employee attempts to improve working conditions through

discussions with supervisors or by appealing to managers higher in the chain of command. Voice is

generally viewed as a response engaged in by workers who would like to remain in an organization and

who are willing to be assertive in order to make improvements in work conditions possible (Rusbult

et al., 1988).

Previous research has been mixed as to whether older and more experienced workers are more likely

to use voice to increase the likelihood of obtaining desired outcomes. LePine and Van Dyne (1998), for

example, found that age was unrelated to voice behavior, while Van Dyne, Graham, and Dienesch

(1994) found that a proxy for work experience (organizational tenure) was negatively related to

workplace participation. Other researchers, in contrast, have found that both age and organizational

tenure are positively related to voice behavior (Naus, van Iterson, & Roe, 2007).

Examining changing perceptions of contract malleability and replicability may help clarify the

relationships of age and work experience with voice. We propose that older and more experienced

workers will feel less need to (and less desire to) speak to their superiors about broken promises or

make suggestions to the organizations. As discussed earlier, workers with greater age and work

experience will have more malleable psychological contracts. In other words, they may be morewilling

to accept delays of promise fulfillment or incomplete fulfillment before taking concrete action (e.g., use

of voice) to change the situation. They may also be more anxious to get involved in unpleasant

conversations or conflicts. Conversely, younger and less experienced employees who have less

malleable psychological contracts may be more assertive in expressing their disappointment to

employers. Low malleability is typically associated with a lack of voluntary compliance, which often

promotes more voice behavior (Krefting & Powers, 1998).

In addition, since older and more experienced employees are likely to believe that the outside market

cannot offer them better deals, they might have greater incentives not to rock the boat in their current

jobs (Finegold et al., 2002). Because using voice may increase the risk of retaliation from employers

(Cortina &Magley, 2003), older and experienced employees may especially want to refrain from using

voice in order not to jeopardize their job security.


DOI: 10.1002/job


In contrast, we suggest that younger workers and less experienced workers may bemore motivated to

use voice. Researchers have observed that employees also use voice for impression management

purposes (Fuller, Barnett, Hester, Relyea, & Frey, 2007). As noted before, younger and less

experienced employees often hold ordinary ‘‘deals.’’ By providing constructive suggestions or

innovative solutions, younger employees may hope to get an edge over their peers and demonstrate they

are worthy of getting better deals in the years ahead. Second, because younger employees are more

likely to perceive that equally good (or even better) employment deals are available elsewhere, they

may be less fearful of retaliation and therefore more likely to negotiate or fight for their demands

(Cortina & Magley, 2003).


experience with voice behavior. That is, part of the negative effect of age and work experience on

voice is due to greater perceptions of contract malleability.


experience with voice behavior. That is, part of the negative effect of age and work experience on

voice is due to greater perceptions of contracts being non-replicable elsewhere.

Loyalty

Loyalty involves silent or passive forbearance of negative work conditions (Hirshman, 1970). While

voice refers to active attempts to change work environments, loyalty refers to remaining with an

organization despite contract breaches. Regarding its relationship with age and work experience, there

is empirical evidence that older and experienced workers are more loyal (Birditt & Fingerman, 2005)

and more committed to the organizations (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Riketta, 2005).

Because older and experienced workers view their contracts as more malleable, they are more likely

to accept contract breaches with silence or passivity, since they believe that organizations will

ultimately honor their commitments. Rusbult et al. (1988) emphasize that loyalty implies passive, but

optimistic, patience for conditions to improve. This operational definition of loyalty is consistent with

our conceptualization of contract malleability, which is to tolerate deviations from expectations

without reciprocating negatively in turn. Thus, loyalty can be viewed as a behavioral expression of

older workers’ malleability regarding unmet promises.

Indeed, Birditt and Fingerman (2005) identified important age differences in strategies used to cope

with interpersonal relationship problems. In particular, older adults were more likely than younger

adults to adopt a ‘‘loyalty’’ strategy in dealing with difficult social relationships. Moreover, older

workers may have more flexible expectations because, as a group, they have more altruistic attitudes

toward life (Midlarsky & Hannah, 1989; Underwood & Moore, 1982). As such, we suggest that older

and experienced workers may view the aggressive pursuit of self-interest as unseemly or deviant. In

such cases, older andmore experienced workers may choose loyalty over other behavioral responses. In

addition, the choice of loyalty might be one of necessity for older and more experienced workers. If

older workers (especially those who are also older than most of their colleagues) feel their deals are not

replicable elsewhere, they have all the more reason to absorb the disappointment patiently and wait for

improvements in due course.


experience with loyalty behavior. That is, part of the positive effect of age and work experience on

loyalty is due to greater perceptions of contract malleability.


DOI: 10.1002/job



experience with loyalty behavior. That is, part of the positive effect of age and work experience on

loyalty is due to greater perceptions of contracts being non-replicable elsewhere.

Neglect

While loyalty is viewed in terms of employee citizenship (extra-role) behaviors, neglect is typically

viewed in terms of employees’ counterproductive behaviors (Rusbult et al., 1988; Withey & Cooper,

1989). For example, neglect is often conceptualized in terms of lower job involvement and greater

workplace withdrawal (Turnley & Feldman, 1999). There is some empirical evidence that older and

more experienced workers are less likely to engage in counterproductive behavior (Lau, Au, & Ho,

2003; Ng & Feldman, 2008).

Here we propose that older and more experienced workers will be less likely to engage in neglect

because they are more likely to believe their contracts are malleable within the current firm but not

replicable in outside firms. Since older and more experienced employees have more malleable

expectations and perceive that equity might be regained in the long run, there is less reason for them to

decrease their efforts toward in-role responsibilities, at least not before they decide that they simply

cannot tolerate their present situations any longer (Dalton & Todor, 1993). Also, because older workers

tend to be more altruistic and better able to understand the viewpoints of others (Midlarsky & Hannah,

1989; Underwood & Moore, 1982), they will be less inclined to deliberately hurt the well-being of the

organization (e.g., through neglect) unless necessary.

Moreover, simply in terms of self-preservation, neglectful behaviors and withdrawal of effort would

weaken, rather than strengthen, older workers’ power to negotiate better deals with current superiors

(Hornung et al., 2008). Indeed, if older workers start neglecting their work, stereotypes about the

declining trajectory of older workers’ performance will be evoked, recommendations from current

employers will worsen, and difficulty finding new jobs elsewhere will be greater. These age stereotypes

may be especially more likely to be evoked when older workers display neglect behavior in an age-

dissimilar environment (Greller & Simpson, 1999).


experience with neglect behavior. That is, part of the negative effect of age and work experience on

neglect behavior is due to greater perceptions of contract malleability.


experience with neglect behavior. That is, part of the negative effect of age and work experience on

neglect behavior is due to greater perceptions of contracts being non-replicable elsewhere.

Discussion

Research programs on aging and psychological contracts have, by and large, developed quite

separately. The purpose of this paper is to integrate these two lines of research by linking psychosocial

changes brought about by aging and accumulation of work experiences to employees’ perceptions of


DOI: 10.1002/job


contract malleability and replicability. In this final section, we discuss the implications of these

propositions for future research and management practice.

Making the transition to empirical research

In order to move the concepts of contract malleability and replicability into the empirical literature,

reliable and valid measures must be developed. We do not foresee major difficulties in being able to

operationalize these concepts successfully and suggest some developmental steps below that might

result in acceptable empirical measures.

First, contract malleability and replicability are psychological in nature and therefore might be

arguably best measured by self-reports. At some point, it might be desirable to obtain supervisors’

perceptions of employees’ psychological contracts on these dimensions as well, but clearly self-report

perceptual data will be needed at the beginning.

Second, because we suggest there will be differences in how employees react to severe and modest

contract breaches, we recommend that researchers incorporate the most typical specific elements of

psychological contracts into these new measures (Turnley & Feldman, 1999). For instance, instead of

measuring employees’ global level of tolerance for contract breaches, researchers should consider

measuring employees’ level of tolerance for broken promises on each of the seven contract elements

identified in Robinson et al. (1994): Opportunities for advancement, level of pay, pay based on current

performance (merit pay), training, job security, career development, and support with personal

problems. These facets can be aggregated to represent overall perceptions of contract malleability and

contract replicability. Moreover, such an approach would help us understand which breaches are most

severe and the differences in how younger and older employees view these various breaches.

Third, to demonstrate discriminant validity, the measurement validation process should include

measures of related, but independent, constructs. Perhaps the most important ones to consider here are

relational contracts, transactional contracts, equity sensitivity, perceived job alternatives, and breach

severity. To this end, researchers should: (a) examine the strength of the empirical relationships

between contract malleability, contract replicability, and these theoretically similar variables;

(b) compare the nomological network of contract malleability and replicability with those of these

other correlates; and (c) use cross-lagged panel research designs, which help researchers understand the

pattern of causal relationships among closely-related constructs.

Advancing research on age and performance

The relationships of age, relative age, and work experience with contract malleability and contract

replicability need to be studied empirically as well. Ng and Feldman (2008) argue that researchers need

to examine the effects of aging on work outcomes by tracking true intra-individual changes; the same

argument can readily be applied to the accumulation of work experience, too. Therefore, longitudinal

studies will clearly be needed. Fortunately, there has been much more research on psychological

contracts using longitudinal designs recently (e.g., De Vos, Buyens, & Schalk, 2003; Sutton & Griffin,

2004). It is not realistic for most researchers to plan 10- or 20-year studies on the impact of aging and

accumulated work experience. However, it is feasible to design studies over 3–5 year periods,

especially if researchers can locate multiple samples that are in different stages of their careers (Super,

1980).

At least three quantitative reviews have been performed on the age-performance relationship over

the last two decades, each with somewhat different conclusions. In the most recent review, Ng and


DOI: 10.1002/job


Feldman (2008) conclude that age is virtually unrelated to core (in-role) task performance but is

significantly positively related to extra-role behaviors and significantly negatively to counterproductive

work behaviors. To resolve these mixed findings on the age-performance relationship, researchers need

to spend more energy examining the underlying processes through which age impacts various

performance dimensions. One such process that needs to be investigated empirically is how aging

influences perceptions of malleability and replicability—and how they, in turn, influence employee

performance. For instance, older employees might engage in more extra-role behavior (e.g., voice,

loyalty) and less counterproductive behavior (e.g., neglect) because they view their contracts as more

malleable but less replicable.

More generally, researchers need to be more mindful about the roles of age and work experience in

psychological contract research. In our review of the literature, we observe that most studies have

treated age and work experience as control variables (e.g., Raja, Johns, & Ntalianis, 2004). Thus, while

there is growing awareness of the importance of age and work experience in psychological contract

formulation and evaluation, empirical research on their substantive influence is still scarce. Our

proposed theoretical model provides some foundations for more empirical research in this direction.

Implications for practice

We hope the present paper will help organizational leaders rethink their approaches to managing older,

veteran employees. As we argue here, perceptions of psychological contracts change as individuals age

and accumulate more work experience. How contracts breaches should be handled for older, more

experienced workers may be very different from how they are handled for young new hires.

Specifically, the provision of idiosyncratic deals has been a core recruitment and retention strategy

for many large corporations hiring young new workers, such as fresh college graduates and MBAs.

However, this paper highlights the potential dangers of pursuing this strategy. Inducements that are

unique and non-replicable are certainly strong incentives for joining an organization, but they can also

be the origin of intense negative reactions when organizations fail to honor those promises over the long

haul. Given that young, less experienced workers are generally intolerant of deviations from

expectations, non-fulfillment of these ‘‘I-deals’’ can be the source of enormous frustration and anger.

On the other hand, offering ‘‘I-deals’’ to older and more experienced workers might not create the

same problems because, as we have argued, these workers see their contracts as more malleable. That is

especially true in organizations where older employees are a minority. Older, more experienced

employees may have highly flexible expectations about the fulfillment of ‘‘I-deals’’ and may

reciprocate with stronger job performance when these deals are honored.

Ironically, older workers may be less likely than younger employees to get their psychological

contracts met because of age stereotypes (Greller & Simpson, 1999; Shore & Goldberg, 2004). In

addition, a self-defeating cycle might emerge because older workers are less likely to be confronting

when promises are unmet. Because older workers show a higher level of tolerance for breaches,

organizations may pay less attention to their concerns and concentrate their efforts of quelling the

complaints of their younger, more vocal colleagues instead.

How organizations respond to unmet expectations of older workers may also depend upon the degree

of age similarity (or dissimilarity) in the work group (Riordan et al., 2004). If an older worker is in a

distinct minority in terms of age cohort size, she/he may be more likely to hold back from confronting a

supervisor and instead view unfulfilled promises as evidence of the organization’s shifting resources to

younger employees as a group. However, older workers’ tolerance for unfulfilled promises may be very

short-lived if most of their colleagues are about their age. In these cases, older workers may view

unfulfilled promises as being directed at them personally rather than due to generalized age stereotypes.


DOI: 10.1002/job


Thus, when older workers are the majority age group, reactions to contract breaches are likely to be

especially strong. In such cases, managers need to recognize that the forbearance of older, more

experienced workers is greater than that of their younger colleagues, but not infinite.

Conclusion

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median age of the American workforce has been

increasing over the last 30 years: 35 years old in 1980, 37 years old in 1990, 39 years old in 2000, and

41 years old in 2006. Given the dominant role that older workers will play in the labor market over

the next two decades, it is critical that we understand how to shape employment relationships to take

advantage of their talents and to minimize the challenges they face on the job. By introducing the

concepts of contract malleability and contract replicability and tying them to age and work experience,

we hope to motivate psychological contract researchers to expand their examinations to older workers

and to motivate age researchers to examine psychological contract formation and evaluation as

important explanatory mechanisms of workplace behavior.

Author biographies

Thomas W. H. Ng received his PhD from the University of Georgia and is currently an Assistant

Professor at the University of Hong Kong. His research interests include career development, job

mobility, organizational and occupational commitment, turnover, aging, work hours, and personality at

work.

Daniel C. Feldman (PhD, Yale University) is the Synovus Chair of Servant Leadership and Associate

Dean for Research at the University of Georgia, Terry College of Business. His research interests

include career indecision, career embeddedness, underemployment, and early retirement incentives.

References

Arthur, M. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (1996). The boundaryless career as a new employment principle. In M. B.Arthur, & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), The boundaryless career (pp. 3–20). New York: Oxford University Press.

Avolio, B. J., & Waldman, D. A. (1994). Variations in cognitive, perceptual, and psycho-motor abilities across theworking life span: Examining the effects of race, sex, experience, education, and occupational type. Psychologyand Aging, 9, 430–442.

Bedeian, A. G., Ferris, G. R., &Kacmar, K.M. (1992). Age, tenure, and job satisfaction: A tale of two perspectives.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40, 33–48.

Beehr, T. A. (1986). The process of retirement: A review and recommendations for future investigation. PersonnelPsychology, 39, 31–56.

Bentein, K., Vandenberg, R. J., Vandenberghe, C., & Stinglhamber, F. (2005). The role of change in the relationshipbetween commitment and turnover: A latent growth modeling approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,468–482.


DOI: 10.1002/job


Birditt, K. S., & Fingerman, K. L. (2003). Age and gender differences in adults’ descriptions of emotional reactionsto interpersonal problems. Journal of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 58,237–245.

Birditt, K. S., & Fingerman, K. L. (2005). Do we get better at picking our battles? Age group differences indescriptions of behavioral reactions to interpersonal tensions. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences,60B, 121–128.

Birditt, K. S., Fingerman, K. L., & Almeida, D. M. (2005). Age differences in exposure and reactions tointerpersonal tensions: A daily diary study. Psychology and Aging, 20, 330–340.

Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Brandstadter, J., & Renner, G. (1990). Tenacious goal pursuit and flexible goal adjustment: Explication and age-related analysis of assimilative and accommodative strategies of coping. Psychology and Aging, 5, 58–67.

Brandstadter, J., & Rothermund, K. (1994). Self-percepts of control in middle and later adulthood: Buffering lossesby rescaling goals. Psychology and Aging, 9, 265–273.

Bunderson, J. S. (2001). How work ideologies shape the psychological contracts of professional employees:Doctors’ responses to perceived breach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 717–741.

Carstensen, L. L. (1991). Selectivity theory: Social activity in life-span context. In K. W. Schaie (Ed.), Annualreview of gerontology and geriatrics (Vol. 11, pp 195–217). New York: Springer.

Cavanaugh, M. A., & Noe, R. A. (1999). Antecedents and consequences of relational components of the newpsychological contract. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 323–340.

Chapman, B. P., & Hayslip, B. (2006). Emotional intelligence in young and middle adulthood: Cross-sectionalanalysis of latent structure and means. Psychology and Aging, 21, 411–418.

Cleveland, J. N., & Shore, L. M. (1992). Self- and supervisory perspectives on age and work attitudes andperformance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 469–484.

Conway, N., & Briner, R. B. (2002). A daily diary study of affective responses to psychological contract breach andexceeded promises. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 287–302.

Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2003). Raising voice, risking retaliation: Events following interpersonalmistreatment in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 247–265.

Coyle-Shapiro, J. A., & Conway, N. (2005). Exchange relationships: Examining psychological contracts andperceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 774–781.

Crosby, F. (1982). Relative deprivation and working women. New York: Oxford Press.Crosby, F. (1984). Relative deprivation in organizational settings. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 51–93). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Crossley, C. D., Bennett, R. J., Jex, S. M., & Burnfield, J. L. (2007). Development of a global measure of jobembeddedness and integration into a traditional model of voluntary. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1031–1042.

Dalton, D. R., & Todor, W. D. (1993). Turnover, transfer, absenteeism: An interdependent perspective. Journal ofManagement, 19, 193–219.

De Vos, A., Buyens, D., & Schalk, R. (2003). Psychological contract development during organizationalsocialization: Adaptation to reality and the role of reciprocity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24,537–559.

Deery, S. J., Iverson, R. D., &Walsh, J. T. (2006). Toward a better understanding of psychological contract breach:A study of customer service employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 166–175.

Eichar, D. M., Brady, E. M., & Fortinsky, R. H. (1991). The job satisfaction of older workers. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 12, 609–620.

Erber, J. T., Szuchman, L. T., & Prager, I. G. (2001). Ain’t misbehaving: The effects of age and intentionality onjudgments about misconduct. Psychology and Aging, 16, 85–95.

Feldman, D. C., & Bolino, M. C. (1997). Careers within careers: Reconceptualizing the nature of career anchorsand their consequences. Human Resource Management Review, 6, 89–112.

Feldman, D. C., Leana, C. R., & Turnley, W. H. (1997). A relative deprivation approach to understandingunderemployment. In C. L. Cooper, & D.M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 43–60). New York: Wiley.

Feldman, D. C., & Ng, T. W. H. (2007). Career mobility, career embeddedness, and career success. Journal ofManagement, 33, 350–377.

Ferris, G. R., Yates, V. L., Gilmore, D. C., & Rowland, K. M. (1985). The influence of subordinate age onperformance ratings and causal attributions. Personnel Psychology, 38, 545–557.

Festinger, L. A. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.


DOI: 10.1002/job


Finegold, D., Mohrman, S., & Spreitzer, G. M. (2002). Age effects on the predictors of technical workers’commitment and willingness to turnover. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 655–674.

Flaherty, K., & Pappas, J. (2002). Using career stage theory to predict turnover intentions among salespeople.Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 10, 48–57.

Forteza, J. A., & Prieto, J. M. (1994). Aging and work behavior. In H. C. Triandis, M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough(Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 447–483). Palo Alto, CA:Consulting Psychologists Press.

Fuller, J. B., Barnett, T., Hester, K., Relyea, C., & Frey, L. (2007). An exploratory examination of voice behaviorfrom an impression management perspective. Journal of Managerial Issues, 19, 134–151.

Garber, J., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1980). Human helplessness. New York: Academic Press.Greller, M. M., & Simpson, P. (1999). In search of late career: A review of contemporary social science researchapplicable to the understanding of late career. Human Resource Management Review, 9, 309–347.

Gross, J. J., Carstensen, L. L., Pasupathi, M., Tsai, J., Skorpen, C. G., & Hsu, A. Y. C. (1997). Emotion and aging:Experience, expression, and control. Psychology and Aging, 12, 590–599.

Guinote, A., Brown, M., & Fiske, S. T. (2006). Minority status decreases sense of control and increasesinterpretative processing. Social Cognition, 24, 169–186.

Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (1998). Times, teams, and task performance: Changingeffects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1029–1045.

Healy, M. C., Lehman, M., & McDaniel, M. A. (1995). Age and voluntary turnover: A quantitative review.Personnel Psychology, 48, 335–345.

Heckhausen, J., & Brim, O. G. (1997). Perceived problems for self and others: Self-protection by socialdowngrading throughout adulthood. Psychology and Aging, 12, 610–619.

Heckhausen, J., & Schulz, R. (1995). A life span theory of control. Psychological Review, 102, 284–304.Hirshman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Hornung, S., Rousseau, D. M., & Glaser, J. (2008). Creating flexible work arrangements through idiosyncraticdeals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 655–664.

Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E. W. (1987). A new perspective on equity theory: The equity sensitivityconstruct. Academy of Management Review, 12, 222–234.

International Labor Organization. (2005). www.ilo.orgJohnson, J. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (2003). The effects of psychological contract breach and organizationalcynicism: Not all social exchange violations are created equal. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 627–647.

Kirchmeyer, C. (1995). Demographic similarity to the work group: A longitudinal study of managers at earlycareer stage. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 67–83.

Krefting, L. A., & Powers, K. J. (1998). Exercised voice as management failure: Implications for willingcompliance theories of management and individualism for de facto employee voice. Employee Responsibilitiesand Rights Journal, 11, 263–277.

Lambert, L. S., Edwards, J. R., & Cable, D. M. (2003). Breach and fulfillment of the psychological contract: Acomparison of traditional and expanded views. Personnel Psychology, 56, 895–934.

Lance, C. E., Vandenberg, R. J., & Self, R. M. (2000). Latent growth models of individual change: The case ofnewcomer adjustment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83, 107–140.

Lau, V. C. S., Au, W. T., & Ho, J. M. C. (2003). A qualitative and quantitative review of antecedents ofcounterproductive behavior in organizations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18, 73–99.

Lawton, M. P., Kleban, M. H., Rajagopal, D., & Dean, J. (1992). Dimensions of affective experience in three agegroups. Psychology and Aging, 7, 171–184.

Lebouvie-Vief, G., & De Voe, M. (1991). Emotional regulation in adulthood and later life: A developmental view.Annual Review of Geronotology and Geriatrics, 11, 172–194.

Lebouvie-Vief, G., Hakim-Larson, J., De Voe, M., & Schoeberlein, S. (1989). Emotions and self-regulation: A lifespan view. Human Development, 32, 279–299.

LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behaviors in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology,83, 853–868.

Lockenhoff, C. E., & Carstensen, L. L. (2007). Aging, emotion, and health-related decision strategies: Motiva-tional manipulations can reduce age differences. Psychology and Aging, 22, 134–146.

Mallinckrodt, B. (1990). Satisfaction with a new job after unemployment: Consequences of job loss for olderprofessionals. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 149–152.


DOI: 10.1002/job


Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D.M. (1990). A review andmeta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequencesof organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171–194.

Midlarsky, E., & Hannah, M. E. (1989). The generous elderly: Naturalistic studies of donations across the life span.Psychology and Aging, 4, 346–351.

Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for the common threads: Understanding the multiple effects ofdiversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 21, 402–433.

Miner, A. S. (1987). Idiosyncratic jobs in formalized organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 327–351.

Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. (2001). Why people stay: Usingorganizational embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1102–1121.

Morrison, E.W., & Robinson, S. L. (1997).When employees feel betrayed: Amodel of how psychological contractviolation develops. Academy of Management Review, 16, 92–120.

Naus, F., van Iterson, A., & Roe, R. (2007). Organizational cynicism: Extending the exit, voice, loyalty, and neglectmodel of employees’ responses to adverse conditions in the workplace. Human Relations, 60, 683–718.

Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2008). The relationship of age to ten dimensions of job performance. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 93, 392–423.

Pugh, S. D., Skarlicki, D. P., & Passell, B. S. (2003). After the fall: Layoff victims’ trust and cynicism in re-employment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 201–212.

Quarstein, V. A., McAfee, R. B., & Glassman, M. (1992). The situational occurrences theory of job satisfaction.Human Relations, 45, 859–873.

Quinones, M. A., Ford, J. K., & Teachout, M. S. (1995). The relationship between work experience and jobperformance: A conceptual and meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 48, 887–910.

Raja, U., Johns, G., & Ntalianis, F. (2004). The impact of personality on psychological contracts. Academy ofManagement Journal, 47, 350–367.

Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, P., & Tang, R. L. (2006). Effects of psychological contract breach on performance of ITemployees. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 299–306.

Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 358–384.Riordan, C. M., Schaffer, B. S., & Stewart, M. M. (2004). Relational demography within groups: Through the lensof discrimination. In R. L. Dipboye, & A. Colella (Eds.), The psychological and organizational bases ofdiscrimination at work (pp. 37–61). Frontier Series, Society for Industrial and Organizational PsychologyMahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Riordan, C. M., & Shore, L. M. (1997). Demographic diversity and employee attitudes: An empirical examinationof relational demography within work units. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 342–358.

Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 574–599.

Robinson, S. L., Kraatz, M. S., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Changing obligations and the psychological contract: Alongitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 137–152.

Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (1995). Psychological contract and OCB: The effect of unfulfilled obligationson civic virtue behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 289–298.

Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (2000). The development of psychological contract breach and violation: Alongitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 525–546.

Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception but the norm.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 245–259.

Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities andRights Journal, 2, 121–139.

Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwrittenagreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Rousseau, D. M., Ho, V. T., & Greenberg, J. (2006). I-deals: Idiosyncratic terms in employment relationships.Academy of Management Review, 31, 977–994.

Rusbult, C. E., Farrell, D., Rogers, G., &Mainus, A. G. (1988). Impact of exchange variables on exit, voice, loyalty,and neglect: An integrative model of responses to declining job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal,31, 599–627.

Ryff, C. D. (1989). In the eye of the beholder: Views of psychological well-being among middle-aged and olderadults. Psychology and Aging, 4, 195–210.

Schein, E. H. (1990). Career anchors. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer.Schindler, I., Staudinger, U. M., & Nesselroade, J. R. (2006). Development and structural dynamics of personal lifeinvestment in old age. Psychology and Aging, 21, 737–753.


DOI: 10.1002/job


Schneider, B., Goldstein, W. H., & Smith, D. B. (1995). The ASA framework: An update. Personnel Psychology,48, 747–773.

Shore, L. M., & Barksdale, K. (1998). Examining degree of balance and level of obligation in the employmentrelationship: A social exchange approach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 731–744.

Shore, L.M., Cleveland, J. N., &Goldberg, C. B. (2003).Work attitudes and decisions as a function of manager ageand employee age. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 529–537.

Shore, L. M., & Goldberg, C. B. (2004). Age discrimination in the work place. In R. L. Dipboye, & A. Colella(Eds.), The psychological and organizational bases of discrimination at work (pp. 203–225). Frontier Series,Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaun Associates.

Shore, L. M., Tetrick, L. E., Taylor, M. S., Coyle-Shapiro, J. A., Liden, R. C., Parks, J. M., .et al. (2004). Theemployee-organization relationship: A timely concept in a period of transition. Research in Personnel andHuman Resources Management, 23, 291–370.

Sorkin, D. H., & Rook, K. S. (2006). Dealing with negative social exchanges in later life: Coping responses, goals,and effectiveness. Psychology and Aging, 21, 715–725.

Steverink, N., & Lindenberg, S. (2006). Which social needs are important for subjectivewell-being?What happensto them with aging? Psychology and Aging, 21, 281–290.

Sturman, M. (2003). Searching for the inverted U-shaped relationship between time and performance: Meta-analyses of the experience/performance, tenure/performance, and age/performance relationships. Journal ofManagement, 29, 609–640.

Sullivan, S. E. (1999). The changing nature of careers: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 25,457–484.

Super, D. E. (1980). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 16,282–298.

Sutton, G., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Integrating expectations, experiences, and psychological contract violations: Alongitudinal study of new professionals. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 493–514.

Tesluk, P. E., & Jacobs, R. R. (1998). Toward an integrated model of work experience. Personnel Psychology, 51,321–355.

Thau, S., Bennett, R. J., Stahlberg, D., & Werner, J. M. (2004). Why should I be generous when I have valued andaccessed alternatives? Alternative exchange partners and OCB. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 607–626.

Thomas, R. C., & Hasher, L. (2006). The influence of emotional valence on age differences in early processing andmemory. Psychology and aging, 21, 821–825.

Turnley, W. H., Bolino, M. C., Lester, S. W., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2003). The impact of psychological contractfulfillment on the performance of in-role and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 29,187–206.

Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (1998). Psychological contract violations during corporate restructuring.HumanResource Management, 37, 71–83.

Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (1999). The impact of psychological contract violations on exit, voice, loyalty,and neglect behaviors. Human Relations, 52, 895–922.

Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2000). Re-examining the effects of psychological contract violations: Unmetexpectations and job dissatisfaction as mediators. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 25–42.

Underwood, B., & Moore, B. (1982). Perspective-taking and altruism. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 143–173.Uotomo, J. M. (1986). Examination of psychological distress in ethnic minorities from a learned helplessnessframework. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 17, 448–453.

US Department of Labor. (2004). www.dol.govVan Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: Constructredefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 765–802.

Wanous, J. P. (1981). Organizational entry. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Webber, R. (1976). Career problems of young managers. California Management Review, 18, 11–13.Weiss, E. M., & Maurer, T. J. (2004). Age discrimination in personnel decision: A reexamination. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 34, 1551–1562.

White, A. T., & Spector, P. E. (1987). An investigation of age-related factors in the age-job-satisfactionrelationship. Psychology and Aging, 2, 261–265.

Withey, M. J., & Cooper, W. H. (1989). Predicting exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 34, 521–539.

Wood, S., & Kisley, M. A. (2006). The negativity bias is eliminated in older adults: Age-related reduction in event-related brain potentials associated with evaluative categorization. Psychology and Aging, 21, 815–820.


DOI: 10.1002/job


599 ftp

Documents

contract replicability

current psychological

little work experience

age discrimination

work experienceshape

work experiencemay

little theoretical work

retirement age beehr