Contents Page: NZJER, 2015, 40(3)
Name

Title

Page
NumberMichael Quinlan, Lynda Employer and Union Responses to 1-23
Matthews, Philip Bohle Traumatic Death at Work:and Scott Fitzpatrick
Evidence from Australia
Sarah Ussher, Maree Women and Careers: New Zealand 24-43
Roche and Donald Cable Women’s Engagement in Careerand Family Planning
Laurent Boey and Tim A Theoretical Model Relating the 44-66
Vantilborgh
Dark Triad of Personality to theContentof
Employees’
Psychological Contracts
Rachel Morrison
Keith Macky

and Employee Social Liability – More 67-89
than just low social capital within
the workplace

Rupert Tipples‘Re-validating Contracting’ as an 90-102
Approach to Forming Lasting
Employment Relationships in
Small Businesses

Rupert Tipples

Commentary:
The
Dairy 103-107
Workplace Action Plan, Kelly’s‘Pledge Washing’, and the Healthand Safety at Work Act, 2015

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 1-23

Employer and Union Responses to Traumatic Death at Work: Evidence
from Australia
MICHAEL QUINLAN*, LYNDA MATTHEWS**, PHILIP BOHLE*** and SCOTTFITZPATRICK****

Abstract
Little is known about how employers and trade unions deal with work-related death, even in higherrisk industries. This study examines union and employer responses to work-related death. Drawing on
interviews conducted with 48 representatives from the key organisations involved in workplace deathin Australia, the aim was not only to determine how employers and unions see their respective roles,
but also how other organisations (safety regulators, insurers, compensation authorities and family
support/advocacy groups) perceive their activities. The findings identify critical institutional
relationships and their implications for both industrial relations and victim’s families. They show areasof agreement and disagreement between unions and employers. They also highlight the impact ofchanges to work arrangements and industrial relations, most notably the growth of self-employment/
subcontracting and declining union density, on the experience of families. The study also points to the
support role provided by unions as another dimension of their contribution to social capital and how
some recent initiatives were extending these activities.

Introduction
Work-related injury, illness and disease continue to impose a significant cost on the community, evenin wealthy and developed countries. The cost burden of traumatic death at work (work-related death)is substantial. The latest estimates by the International Labour Organization (ILO) indicate that there
are globally 2.2 million work-related deaths and that workplace injury, illness and death cost the global
economy some $US1,250,000 million or 4 per cent of world GDP (ILO, 2003). Similarly, SafeWork
Australia (2015) estimated that the total cost of work-related injury and disease in Australia was$AU61.8 billion in 2012-13, representing 4.1 per cent of GDP (a drop from 5.9 per cent in 2005-06).
These estimates are based on direct and indirect costs to employers, workers and the community andmainly relate to institutional or readily estimable processes like productivity losses, compensation,
litigation, prosecution, medical expenses, hours/overtime, insurance, loss of earnings, funeral and carercosts (Safe Work Australia, 2015: 15). Employers only bear 5% of these costs with the bulk being
borne by workers (77%) and the community (18%). Since 2000-2001 the cost burden on workers has* Michael Quinlan, School of Organisation and Management, Australian School of Business, The University of New

South Wales (correspondence)**
Lynda Matthews, Associate Professor, Head of Discipline (Rehabilitation Counselling), Faculty of Health Sciences,
The University of Sydney***
Philip Bohle, Work and Health Research Team, Ageing, Work and Health Research Team, Faculty of Health
Sciences, The University of Sydney**** Scott Fitzpatrick, Centre for Rural and Remote Mental Health, University of Newcastle, Australia

1New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 1-23
increased from 44% to 77%, the burden on employers increased from 3% to 5% while that on thecommunity dropped from 53% to 18% (Safe Work Australia, 2015:3). The imbalance in the costburden and the significant redistribution over time has occasioned no public debate we are aware of.
Further, here is little if any explicit recognition of the impact on families even in economic terms letalone the more difficult but still tangible costs in terms of human suffering and social dislocation(including effects on the education and life-chances of affected children).
The figures don’t include a measure for each work-related death but data for transport related deaths
provide a guide. Estimates by the Australian Bureau of Transport Economics (Risby, de Silva, & Tong,
2007) indicate that the average cost of each death in road transport, including deaths other than workrelated deaths, was $A1.7 million in 1996 ($A2.64 million when adjusted to 2013 dollars). On thisbasis, the estimated cost of the 186 work-related deaths in Australia in 2012-13 is $A491 million. As
with Safe Work Australia data these estimates do not capture the cascading financial, psychological,
social, and human costs to the families of those killed or adverse effects on work colleagues (Anderson,
Schulte, Sestito, Linn & Nguyen, 2010). These additional effects multiply the impact because the vast
majority of deaths affect close relatives, such as spouses or partners, parents, children, brothers orsisters.
Understandably, much of the focus of research, policy debate and employment practices has been on
reducing the toll of those whose health, safety and well-being has been directly impaired by work
because it will reduce the substantial levels of economic costs and human suffering. At the same, there
are policy strong grounds for examine what injury and death mean for those affected, both directly andindirectly (including families). Greater knowledge of the workplace impact of injury and death is likely
to strengthen the case for stronger preventative measures. Just as important, it is important tounderstand these impacts so as to better support those affected. Work-related death is the most acuteexample of a failure in safety that is likely to seriously impact on the family and friends of the deceased.
However, non-fatal disabling injuries or diseases can also have profound effects. For example, aworker suffering a disabling injury may require a significant level of care from family members (mosttypically children or a spouse) and this in turn can have a serious burden on family members. Indeed,
during the course of this project one interviewee described how such an injury to their father in law
had placed a significant stress on their marriage because of the amount of time his spouse needed tospend caring for her father. While these issues clearly warrant research the focus of the current study
was on responses to work-related deaths. Hopefully, this study will facilitate further research into otherdimensions of the impact of adverse work outcomes on families.

While there is an extensive research literature on workplace death, it overwhelmingly focusses oninvestigative, regulatory and judicial responses. Little of it makes more than passing reference toworkers or workers’ families (for an exception with regard to families of the 1988 Piper Alpha oil rig
disaster in the North Sea which claimed 167 lives, see Alexander, 1990; 1991). A small body of
relevant research has taken an organisational management perspective (Lee, 1994;Urban Ministry
Network, 2000; Sinclair & Haines, 1993). For example, in a study of 18 employers involved inworkplace fatalities in Victoria, Australia, Sinclair and Haines, (1993) found that, in conjunction witha sense of shock and shame, concerns over legal liability led a majority of employers to distancethemselves from responsibility rather than to confront and learn from it. Organisations that displayeda reflective response and acknowledged the need for organisational review and improvement were
better able to respond constructively to the tragedy and make changes to avoid similar events occurring
again. Research by Lee (1994) and Urban Ministry Network (2000) also illustrates the importance ofdeveloping appropriate organisational responses to work-related death to mitigate its long-term effects
2

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 1-23
and enable successful coping. Studies on work injury and illness have also highlighted the negative
effects on family well-being of institutional responses perceived to be unjust and inequitable (Dembe,
2001;Lippel, 2007; Kirsh & McKee, 2003). Although in its infancy, an emerging body of research has
shown that institutional responses to a work-related death may impose significant additional harm onfamilies of deceased workers (Brookes, 2009; Matthews, Bohle, Quinlan & Rawlings-Way, 2012).
Available evidence suggests work-related deaths commonly have a severe financial impact on families
and compensation or other payments are inadequate (Quinlan, Fitzpatrick, Matthews, Ngo, & Bohle,2015). The negative consequences of long-term exposure to the compensation, investigative, andjudicial processes that inevitably delays families receiving information about the circumstances of thedeath of their loved one complicated the bereavement process and are reported to exacerbate healthconsequences (Matthews, Quinlan, Rawlings-Way & Bohle, 2012). This research1 identified serious
management issues that require further investigation to guide improvements in policy and practice.
This article seeks to address these gaps in existing knowledge by examining employer and union
responses to work-related death in Australia and their implications for industrial relations and forsurviving families.
Almost all the research described above has been published in health, medical and law or criminology
journals. Treatment of workplace death, even in an incidental fashion, is rare in industrial
relations/labour studies or HRM journals (for an exception see Holland & Pyman, 2011). Moretypically, OHS-related studies in industrial relations journals over the past decade have dealt with
union campaigns over safety, the operation and effects of workers’ compensation regimes, testingwhether there are compensating payments for dangerous work and, more recently, the OHS effects ofprecarious work arrangements including subcontracting (see for example Dorman & Hagstron, 1998;
Hyatt & Kralj, 2000; Underhill & Quinlan, 2011). In some respects, the limited interest in this issue
may be a consequence of the development of workers’ compensation and other elements of the welfare
state (social security/pensions, state education and health services provision). Prior to thesedevelopments, financial support to bereaved families relied on the benevolence of the employer,
community collections (more common in the case of multiple fatality incidents), other family members
or unions. By the early 19th century, mutual insurance was a key function of many craft unions,
including friendly society benefits like unemployment payments (and assistance finding work througha House of Call), sickness benefits and funeral funds. Some unions covering dangerous industries,
including miners unions, retained doctors to assist in the treatment of their members and organisedcollections for families when a member was killed. More generally, unions campaigned vigorously fora workers’ compensation regime to alleviate distress on families as well as OHS laws to protect
workers (Quinlan, Bohle, & Lamm, 2010). This activity can be seen as one element of the broader
interest that organised labour had in the living standards of workers, their families and working
communities.
The introduction of a relatively comprehensive welfare regime and other regulation has not meant that
unions are no longer involved in supporting families, though their role has changed. Some unions
continue to provide ‘pastoral’ care to the families of their members (and in some instances even nonmembers) who have been killed at work, including financial assistance, emotional support andadvocacy, and helping them with the complex institutional and regulatory processes following thedeath. Nor is this support confined to work death. For example, it is common (in Australia at least) for
unions to retain legal advice to assist injured workers making claims. The extent of these activities
varies according to the union’s resources and policies as well as industry characteristics, a topic worthyof more systematic research in itself. Further, these activities can be seen as a dimension of the union
movement’s contribution to social capital, a neglected area of union activity and one which, ifdeveloped further through social networking, also holds prospects for union renewal (Jarley, 2005).
3

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 1-23

When a work-related death occurs in Australia, various organisations become involved and a series of
institutional processes is initiated. While there are jurisdiction-specific factors, in broad terms, what
occurs in Australia can be found in New Zealand, Canada, the USA, and other countries. A fatal injury
at work will normally initiate at least four and possibly six regulatory and judicial responses. These
include: i) police investigation; ii) workers’ compensation claim; iii) government safety investigation;iv) prosecution; v) common law claim;2 and, vi) coronial investigation. Employers and unions can be
involved to varying degrees in each of these processes. The major difference in New Zealand is thatthe universal coverage for injury afforded by the Accident Compensation Commission eliminates anumber of the inequities associated with the workers’ compensation law option, most notably covering
self-employed workers. Leaving this point to one side it should be noted that employer and union
involvement extends the six regulatory responses just mentioned, especially regarding how they
respond to work-related deaths and their interactions with workers and families of deceased workers.
Union structure in Australia is primarily occupational but with an increased industry focus due to awave of amalgamations since the 1970s. Like many other developed countries, union density has
declined substantially (from over 50 per cent in the mid-1970s to around 17 per cent by 2013) but
continues to vary significantly between industries (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008). In the private
sector, mining and construction are more strongly unionised than transport and agriculture though all
four have experienced declines. Declining membership and changes to industrial relations laws have
weakened union access to workplaces, including those following a work-related death (Quinlan &Johnstone, 2009).
Like Canada and the USA, workers’ compensation and occupational health and safety (OHS) laws areprimarily a state/territory/province responsibility. Like the UK and Canada, work-related deaths andother serious incidents are routinely investigated by OHS regulators who, if detecting a serious breachof legislation, can initiate a prosecution (for an examination of regulator responsiveness to families incases of work-related death, (see Matthews, Fitzpatrick, Bohle & Quinlan, 2014).3 While somestate/territory OHS laws include special provisions for work-related death and as criminal statutes
provide for prison terms (as well as fines and enforceable undertakings), to our knowledge, the gaol
penalty has never been imposed. Workers’ compensation regimes in Australia are broadly similar to
those found in Canada being primarily restricted to employees. The families of self-employed workers
can pursue civil litigation. Unlike Canada, access to workers’ compensation does not preclude civil
action (for damage based on the tort of negligence) by employees or their families in the case of theworker’s death, but anti ‘double-dipping’ provisions mean any common law settlement will be offset
by the amount of any payments already made under workers’ compensation (for a more detailed
account of the administration of workers’ compensation and civil claims in cases of work-related deathsee Quinlan et al., 2015). Some state workers’ compensation regimes include premium bonus or
penalty provisions so that the costs of a work-related death may have implications for an employer orcontractor’s compensation premiums, especially in the case of medium-sized firms.
This article seeks to shed light on how employers and unions respond to work-related deaths and theextent to which they support families, not simply based on their own perceptions but also in terms of
how representatives of other organisations (insurers, safety regulators, workers’ compensation
authorities, coronial officers and family support/advocacy groups) view these responses. The study
addressed the following research questions:
1. How do employers and unions respond to traumatic work-related death?
4New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 1-23
2. What are the critical institutional processes and relationships affecting employers and unions
following a traumatic work-related death?
3. What are the implications of these processes and relationships for the victims’ families andindustrial relations more generally?
This study is an initial exploration of a rarely-examined topic and is, therefore, largely descriptive.
However, it will be the basis for further qualitative and quantitative research evaluating institutionalroles and responses after work-related deaths and their implications for industrial relations and thefamilies of deceased workers.

Methods
This study used exploratory qualitative methods to explore the procedures and practices implemented
to respond to work-related deaths and the extent to which they assisted families. Employer and union
responses in relation to initial contact and ongoing response to families, safety investigations andcoronial inquests, workers’ compensation, and common law proceedings, were sought. Interviews
were not only conducted with employer and union representatives but also with representatives ofother organisations directly or indirectly involved in these processes, including safety regulators,
insurers, workers’ compensation authorities, coronial officials, and advocacy/support groups forvictim’s families. This approach provided a broader, more rounded picture of union and employer
responses. An employer/industry body that offered advice to smaller employers also agreed toparticipate. The research protocol was approved by the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics
Committee before the study commenced (Approval 2012/2319). A more detailed description of themethods can be found in (Matthews et. al. 2014).
Participants and Setting
Interviews were sought with representatives from organisations and stakeholders involved in workrelated deaths in Australia. Fifty-six managers from government safety inspectorates, government
compensation agencies, trade unions, employers, coroner’s office, police, and family support andadvocacy groups and services were contacted by phone or email and advised of the aims of the study.
Agreement was sought for their participation (or that of a nominated representative) in a face-to-faceinterview held in their local area. In total, 48 managers or representatives agreed to participate (seeTable 1).
Table 1 List of Participants
SectorGovernment Safety Inspectoraten = 11Government
Agencyn=8Trade Unions
n=6

Representative
Senior managers, including chief inspectors, directors of policy,
strategy, infrastructure, enforcement, investigations
Senior policy, project and information officers
Inspectors
Compensation
Senior managers and directors, including regional managers
Assistant directors of policy/planning, case or claims
managers/coordinators (including claim agents)
State and district secretaries and presidents
OHS officers and legal advisers
Industry safety representatives
Assistant Secretary5New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 1-23
Employers in construction, roadtransport and agriculture, fishingand forestryn = 11
Coroner’s Officen=4
Policen=1
SupportandGroups/Services
n=7

Advocacy

Senior managers, CEOs, state manager and industry association
director
Safety managers, superintendents, project managers
Site safety managers, industrial chaplains
Coroners and senior managers, coroners court and investigation
units
Coronial associates, police attached to coroner’s office
Officers in charge of crash investigations
Directors and secretaries

Participants included representatives from government prevention and compensation organisations infour of six Australian states – one state was not approached due to funding constraints and another did
not wish to participate. Interviews were also conducted with representatives of employers and tradeunions from the four industries that account for approximately 70 per cent of all notified workplace
deaths: road transport, construction, mining, and agriculture, fishing and forestry, aside from themining industry where we were unable to secure an interview. Separate and stringent protocols for
conducting research with police in some states prevented us from interviewing all four members of thepolice force contacted, with the exception of one state. However, as the role of police is largely to
conduct an immediate inquiry to rule out any foul play (i.e. homicide), their views were not considered
critical to the present focus on employers and union responses. In regards to the coronial office, of thesix representatives contacted, we were able to interview four. The sample also consisted of support
groups and services – small bodies primarily composed of the families of those killed at work that areinterested in ensuring that investigation and prosecution processes better meet the needs of families aswell as promoting more effective enforcement of work safety legislation.
Because the sample of government prevention and compensation organisations extended across thefour jurisdictions and included various levels (management/policy positions, those involved inprosecutions, claims and field inspectors), we believe it is relatively representative notwithstanding
jurisdictional differences in OHS organisation and legislation. All unions covering the four key
industries that were the focus of the project (construction, mining, road transport andfarming/fishing/forestry) agreed to participate in the project. On the other hand, as the number ofinterviews undertaken with employers was relatively small and did not extend to all jurisdictions andindustries, information from these participants may not be representative. Employers were approachedin the four industry groups, and we obtained participants in all with the exception of mining. Obtaining
participation from employers proved more difficult. A number of those participating had been closely
involved in a recent workplace fatality, others had been aware of an incident but not directly involved
and others had no involvement but were aware of the issue as relevant to their industry. An interview
was sought and obtained with an industry peak body (an avenue not pursued further because it became
apparent peak bodies had little if any involvement in traumatic work-related death).
While employers and unions must deal with the same general issues following a work-related deathirrespective of industry, the characteristics of particular industries – including different patterns ofindustrial relations – will influence responses. The four industries that were the focus of this study
exhibit such differences. In the mining industry, large corporate employers tend to predominate(despite the existence of many small mines) and the industry remains relatively highly unionised inAustralia. Conversely, notwithstanding the growth of agribusiness, the farming, fishing and forestry
industry is dominated by many small self-employed operators and has generally low levels of
6New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 1-23
unionisation. Construction and road transport fall in between these two extremes, with many large
corporate operators (where union membership is concentrated) but also extensive use of self-employedsubcontractors and small operators (where union membership is generally low).
At the same time, it is important to recognise that all four industries have been affected by broader
changes in the labour market, business practices and industrial relations climate over the past 20 ormore years, including a growing use of contract labour/subcontracting and de-collectivisation ofindustrial relations that has affected OHS by weakening worker participation mechanisms andundermining regulatory protection (Quinlan & Johnstone, 2009). Without ignoring this importantqualification, it is arguable that larger employers are more likely to have established policies andpractices to deal with situations like work-related death than small employers, and the level ofunionisation in an industry or sector will also influence whether families can access support from them.
Social, cultural, and institutional factors may influence participants’ perspectives on these issues.
However, by sampling strategically across organisations and stakeholders with extensive contextual
and situated knowledge of the relevant regulatory and judicial processes, and of working with families
of deceased workers, the sample was considered large enough to make comparisons that meaningfully
address our first research question.
All participants were provided with a Participant Information Statement and interview protocol prior
to the interview date. Written consent was sought prior to the interview.
Data collection and analysis
After participants’ written consent was obtained, semi-structured interviews were conducted face-toface by an experienced researcher. An interview schedule was designed to elicit specific information
about the organisations role in work-related death (including the procedures and practices that follow);
the nature of the support offered to individuals and families; the nature and timing of information
provided, and interactions with, authorities, individuals and families; and the nature of the outcomesfor individuals and families. With participants’ permission, interviews were audio-recorded,transcribed verbatim, and de-identified. Interviews lasted between 15 and 90 minutes and took place
between August 2012 and January 2013.
Interview transcripts were read and analysed separately by two members of the research team who
identified, by consensus, initial themes for labelling and sorting the data. Any differences ininterpretation or categorisation were discussed and resolved collaboratively, thus, helping to ensure
reliability and validity (DeSantis & Ugarriza, 2000). A framework analysis was then carried out inwhich the substantive content of the interviews was systematically indexed and summarised. This
analysis was done using NVivo software and was applied across the entire data set. This generated an
extensive list of approximately 50 descriptive categories grouped under the following: i) policies,
practices and roles; ii) nature of support; iii) nature and timing of information; iv) nature and timingof interactions; v) consequences and impacts of workplace deaths; vi) legal processes; and, vii)
adequacy in meeting needs. Following this, a more focussed analysis was carried out in whichassociations within and across categories were mapped and synthesised and patterns or differences
within the data identified in order to facilitate in-depth investigation of union and employer responses
to work-related death (Mays & Pope, 2000; Ritchie & Spencer, 2002). Findings are reported based on
employer and union responses regarding: i) initial response and ongoing contact; ii) workers’
compensation and common law, iii) investigation and prosecution, and, iv) coronial inquests.
7

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 1-23

Findings
Employers
1.

Initial response and ongoing contact

For employers, one pressing question following a work-related death concerns how the organisation
should respond, including if and how they should contact the family. In most cases, the police arecalled to the scene to carry out a preliminary investigation (to rule out a possible homicide). While thepolice are normally the first to contact the family, especially in small communities, the first contact
may also be from fellow workers or friends, as reported by one agricultural employer. Given their size
and the nature of the industries, it was not surprising that all representatives of large employers inconstruction and road transport indicated that their organisation had a formal documented protocol for
dealing with emergency situations. These protocols included work-related death but, unlike those ofsafety regulators, there were no dedicated elements for work-related death. The protocol typically took
the form of a crisis-management procedure by which designated managerial staff assembled tocoordinate, manage, and post-manage serious incidents. The procedure included securing the site,managing and disseminating information to external organisations and the media, coordinating the
Employee Assistance Program, and in some cases, contacting the family.
However, protocols for contacting the family were neither consistent between organisations nor always
apparent to managers at a worksite. Most construction industry interviewees were unaware of any
formal protocols or procedures for contacting families, considering them the domain of Human
Resources, counsellors or senior management. In two organisations, the Managing Director took
responsibility for contacting the family. However, other employer representatives in construction andother industries indicated they had received legal advice not to contact the family. Other respondents,
including government inspectorates, unions, and lawyers acting for unions, also stated that employers
were increasingly discouraged by their lawyers from contacting families in case their statements wereas an admission of fault or used in evidence in legal proceedings – either civil litigation, prosecution
by the government safety regulator or a coronial inquest. The risk of civil litigation for common law
damages was especially high where the deceased worker was a self-employed subcontractor because
the family was generally excluded from the only other option, namely a workers’ compensation
settlement.
The legal advice is often for the company to say nothing to the family. Ninety per cent of labouron construction projects is through subcontractors so the builders themselves are not theemployer of the injured or the worker whose fatality has occurred... So contacting the familyof a subcontractor… it creates antagonism. There’ll always be an element of blame from theinjured family, not only against the employer, but against the big builder, against the head
contractor. (Employer #10)
Notwithstanding these issues, some individuals did contact families to offer support, including direct
financial support or organising workplace donations. This discrepancy is indicative of a tension
between the professional or organisational and the personal responses to work-related death. On one
hand, there is pressure to withhold information or to not act in ways that might appear to be anadmission of guilt or legal liability to protect the interests of the company. There is, nevertheless,compassion for the family, which was most evident in an interview with the Chief Executive Officer
of a regional, family-owned agricultural company who spoke of the challenges of balancing his
8New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 1-23
responsibility to the company, over both the long and short term, with his responsibility to the family.
Having provided emotional and financial support to the spouse over a period of 18 months, during
which a close friendship developed, he described how this relationship deteriorated once theprosecution judged the company responsible for the death.
I think that the legislation and the stricter liability nature of it was one of the things that turned[spouse] against us a bit more because I really noticed the change in her once she saw the
charges from [government safety inspectorate] that [company] was responsible…. It wasn’t
just the charges… but the prosecution brief. She took that as being, well you know, [company]
was responsible and that’s what the court says… [That] turned her behaviour around, at least
to me. (Employer #9)
One transport employer used chaplains to facilitate balance between professional and personal roles.
The chaplaincy team’s approach was for the family to control the process (although support wasprovided to work colleagues of the deceased), and there were clear procedures for receiving families
if they decided to attend the site of the incident, or at the hospital. An initial offer of support was madeto the family, which was followed up at regular intervals.
It’s that fine line between harassing someone – saying, do you need help – and actually
recognising that they’re on this kind of rollercoaster and they don’t know what help they mightneed. So we’ll do that initial, ‘we’re here to support you however you like’ and then at 24, 48[hours] we’ll be saying, ‘do you now need some support with’ – and actually being more
concrete in the offers. (Employer #11)
As a result of their professional involvement in funerals and memorial services, chaplains had theopportunity to meet with families over the longer term to check how they were coping and to anticipate
future needs. This included practical tasks like organising help around the garden or providing career
guidance for teenage children. Chaplains could also act as a referral point for those requiring
specialised services such as grief counselling or drug and alcohol services.

2. Workers’ compensation and common law
While donations from employers, unions or workplace collections might help some families, theprimary source of financial support for families is workers’ compensation, which includes statutory
payments in the case of work-related death plus ongoing payments to dependent spouses and (moreespecially) children. In Australia, families can also sue for damages at common law, which may resultin a higher payment than workers’ compensation (settlements are adjusted to account for workers’
compensation receipts to prevent ‘double-dipping’). A successful common law claim requires proving
the death resulted from negligence by the employer or another party. It is a more problematic andlengthier process than workers’ compensation. However, as most self-employed workers are excluded
from workers’ compensation cover, a common law damages claim is usually the only option for theirfamilies.
Most employers spoke at length about company-specific policies and schemes offering direct financial
assistance to families rather than about workers’ compensation per se. This response reflected the factthat after a claim is lodged the employer is no longer involved – the processing and outcomes are theresponsibility of the workers’ compensation authority or the private insurer licensed by them.
Nonetheless, a common concern amongst employer representatives was the inability of the families of9New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 1-23
self-employed subcontractors to claim workers’ compensation and the financial pressures on them that
result. Several employers also referred to the need to provide more immediate support while claims
were being determined. The industry association said on occasion it approached the workers’
compensation authority when a claim was rejected:[So] say they’re not helping a family that we’re trying to push a claim through [for] – weenquire as to their processes and procedures. There have been other occasions when we’ve said
‘this family is destitute and you need to process the claim as quickly as possible’ and they’vebeen very good in that space. (Employer #10)
The chaplains of one employer also sought to assist vulnerable families with their compensation
claims:If you’re functioning 100 per cent, those processes are fraught. If you’ve just lost the person
who may well have been the one who made all the decisions and knew about that stuff,
you’re in deadly situations. So sometimes for us, that means going, sitting with someone
during the compensation hearings. It might mean going and helping them choose a lawyer
to represent them. It might mean we provide them with support. (Employer #11)
These responses reflect a recognition of the problems associated with the growth of subcontracting
arrangements as well as recognition of the financial stress experienced by families. (Matthews, Bohle,
et al., 2012). The families of self-employed workers typically found in subcontracting arrangements
are generally excluded for accessing workers’ compensation and because these workers are seldom
unionised must mount their own claims at common law – an often lengthy and problematic process(Quinlan, et. al. 2015).

3. Investigation and prosecution
The investigation process following a death can take six months or more, and court proceedings (ifpursued) may not occur until a year or much longer after the incident. While these processes are
occurring, families often have limited information on the circumstances surrounding the fatality.
Employer representatives referred to the constraints imposed by the legal process on their ability tocommunicate to families or their own workforce. One stated:
I think there should be some sort of open reporting culture there. I can understand why
companies don’t do it, because suddenly as soon as an occurrence happens they’re put
under legal privilege (Employer #2)
Similarly, an industry organisation representative stated:
I think people are entitled to know what happened… How did my father die, how did myson die? ... The causation stuff is terribly important. Unfortunately, there’s legal privilege
around that and even the government’s investigation, they don’t want to tell anybody
what they have found in their inquiries. So you have this issue of timing and can you give
general information to a family. My view is you can give very general information to a
family to say how the law works... Families are entitled to know the process. (Employer#10)10New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 1-23
Interestingly, several believed the situation had been exacerbated by the more conspicuous role playedby corporate law firms – a concern shared by other interviewees, including government safety
regulators, unions and support groups.
The investigative and prosecution process also exacted a toll on the employing organisation. One
interviewee recounted the personal, interpersonal, and organisational impacts it had:
In terms of the organisation and some of the people – you just notice the toll it takes…
one of the things it did was pit people against each other in the organisation who were
trying to work out what happened and the [government safety inspectorate] uses
someone’s story and throws out someone else’s – we’ve got some lingering difficult
relationships internally because of that. (Employer #9)

4. Coronial Inquest
Of the employer representatives interviewed, only two said anything about their involvement in thecoronial process. One was a safety facilitator required to attend fatalities and prepare documents for
submission to the coroner’s office. The other had attended a coronial inquest concerning a death at theworkplace he managed. Contrary to the views of some union representatives (see below), the manager
did not believe the coronial process had fully disclosed the evidence surrounding the workplace death:
There was some information about the plan of work for the day and who was instructed
to do what and why they were doing it and what they were doing. We just found, and thisfollowed through to the prosecution, that some of that information wasn’t asked or didn’t
come out or wasn’t refuted by someone. (Employer #9)
The employer representative believed the failure to capture the ‘whole story’ surrounding theworkplace death resulted in dissatisfaction amongst those employees who gave evidence to the inquest
and also influenced the subsequent prosecution by the safety regulator (in some jurisdictions a coronial
inquest can only occur after a prosecution is finalised).

Unions
Before describing union responses, it is important to provide some contextual background. All four
unions are large and all had taken some active involvement in work-related death. The New South
Wales (NSW) branches of both the mining (predominantly coal mining) and construction divisions of
the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) have a history of providing support,
including financial support, to the families of members killed at work (and sometimes non-members)
and had either erected or sponsored memorial walls of those killed. The memorial wall of the northern
NSW division of the CFMEU mining division at Cessnock has over 1800 names of mineworkers who
have died since the early 1800s. The NSW branch of the construction division of the CFMEU has
supported a formal group of families for those killed at work – not just union members or those killedin construction – including organising an annual construction safety dinner where employers attend toraise money for the support group. The NSW branch of the Transport Workers Union (TWU) also
supported a formal family group about a decade ago as part of a campaign to improve truck-driversafety and has continued to maintain contact with families. Like the CFMEU, it supported a memorialof truck drivers at Tarcutta on the Hume highway where a ceremony is held each year. Some employers
11New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 1-23
are also involved in this ceremony. For its part, the Victorian branch of the Australian Workers Union(AWU), which represents metalliferous miners and agricultural workers, became heavily involved ina fatal rock fall at the Beaconsfield gold mine in Tasmania in 2006 (one mineworker was killed andtwo entrapped for 11 days), and provided representation for the family of the deceased worker in thesubsequent coronial inquest.
The activities above, especially of the CFMEU, probably represent a stronger level of engagementwith families than is typical but do appear to reflect a wider trend in which unions are seeking to build
broader community engagement and networks – a point taken up later in this article.

1. Initial contact
The unions interviewed for this study lacked documented protocols to deal with workplace death but
all had established procedures, to varying degrees, known to the officials involved, from union
secretaries through to organisers. These procedures were based on union structures, the expertise or
experience of particular officials and longstanding practices, particularly regarding workers’
compensation and civil litigation. At the same time, respondents believed the diversity of theirmembership and sensitivity to different family circumstances made a ‘one size fits all’ protocol
unfeasible when it came to initial contact. In the case of the construction union, for example, initial
contact was often made through a work colleague out of respect for the privacy of the family.
Once initial contact had been made, the response of most unions was relatively consistent. It involved
the provision of practical support for families of the deceased, including legal and counselling supports
as well as advice about, and assistance in, accessing financial benefits. All four unions had contracted
specialist legal firms to pursue common law damages claims or disputed workers’ compensation
entitlements. The provision of more immediate financial support also played a prominent role in union
responses. This support ranged from a substantial payment of around A$100,000, in addition to otherfinancial receipts from workers’ compensation or other sources, from the fighting fund of the miners’
union, to support with journey claims no longer covered by workers’ compensation (in the case of thetransport and construction union), and organising donations from members (including multi-workplacelevies or subscriptions). The construction and mining unions had also facilitated payments byemployers or others to self-employed contractors and other non-members.
Unions can be a conduit through which the family can find out the circumstances of the death anddemand measures to prevent a recurrence. Representatives of other bodies, including safety regulators,
endorsed the value of unions’ role as facilitators of information and support to families. One safety
regulator argued that providing information to families via unions was a way to avoid sub judice issues
in a pending prosecution before adding.
We don’t volunteer information... but if they contact us on behalf of their members ….
That’s when we engage with the union – usually the health and safety officer on site. We
walk with them around the site and let them know what we think and we develop therelationship at that point. (Government Safety Inspectorate #5)
Unlike other organisations whose roles require impartiality, such as OHS regulators, or may even entail
a conflict of interest, such as with employers, unions can unashamedly advocate on behalf of thefamily. In addition to empathy, representatives saw a close alignment of the union’s goals and activities
with those of families. This view is consistent with previous research that found that unions were the12New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 1-23
only organisations whose activities were viewed in a consistently positive light by bereaved families(Matthews, Quinlan, et al., 2012).
The capacity and willingness of unions to help families can vary markedly however. Using a range ofsources, including their members at the workplace who witnessed the incident, contacts in otherorganisations and familiarity with documentary sources, unions can provide families with informationon the circumstances of the death. This task can prove taxing for unions, such as the TWU, AWU and
CFMEU (Construction Division), which cover large, remotely located or disparate (in terms ofoccupation) groups of workers and with low or patchy membership. The CFMEU (construction), forexample, was in a stronger position to provide assistance in the case of a death on a large construction
site than one on a housing site (especially one in a small town). The TWU and AWU face similar
challenges.
On the other hand, the capacity of the more highly unionised CFMEU (mining division) to provide
this information was enhanced by the fact that in both Queensland and NSW coal mine safety
legislation empowers its safety representatives, including full-time representatives paid for by theunion, to undertake inspections/investigations and to be kept informed of worksite investigations
undertaken by the company. Unlike their counterparts in other industries, the safety officials in the
CFMEU mining division must also be informed of notifiable incidents at a workplace, which include
fatalities. Interviews with a CFMEU Industry Safety Representative indicated that they normallyliaised with the branch president and secretary, who then contacted the family to offer assistance. The
mining industry regulations provide a model which could be used to facilitate the more rapid releaseof information to families via unions in other industries (Matthews, Quinlan, et al., 2012).
Several union representatives argued that having to deal with an ethnically and socially diverse
membership strengthened their ability to deal with challenging issues like complex family structures:
Family structures are complex at times. Unions are well-placed generally to deal withthose complexities because they understand diversity. We understand the breadth of ourmembership; not in an intimate way, but in a far more intimate way than their employers
generally do, and lawyers generally do, or regulators generally do. So we have a role toplay there in delivering those sorts of support networks and services. (Union #5)
As well as providing emotional support and information about rights and entitlements to families,
union support can extend to assistance with funeral arrangements. Long-term contact and support wasalso raised by some participants. While long-term relationships had developed as a result of thecampaigning work of some family members, often contact lapsed once legal support had been provided
and families were satisfied with it.
I think we could do better at ensuring that there is a bit of long-term support for thesefamilies going forward; that they are not left to fend for themselves. After they are given
their lump sum it’s like, well there you go. (Union #4)
The issue of long-term support was also connected to the broader role that unions could perform andthe benefits of a more strategic approach. While a decline in union membership and the growth of nonunionised workplaces have severely challenged conventional union activity, the provision of these
supports has afforded unions an opportunity to demonstrate the broader community service role they
can perform. This has a ripple effect beyond the families immediately assisted, especially where a
network has been built. Two measures identified in the introduction to this section may assist this13

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 1-23
process. First, annual memorial services have provided an ongoing point of contact between unions
and families. This activity was endorsed by representatives of other bodies interviewed, not only victim
support groups but also some safety regulators. Second, and perhaps more importantly, several unions,most notably the construction division of the CFMEU, have sponsored or supported family support
groups, which in turn have become powerful community advocates for improved safety and workers’
compensation (Matthews, Quinlan, et al., 2012). It is noteworthy that several employers interviewed
had invited family members involved in advocacy groups to address their workplaces about theimportance of safety.

1. Workers’ compensation and common law claims
As noted earlier, work-related death often has serious financial repercussions for families that can becompounded by unfamiliarity with seeking workers’ compensation or making claim at common law.
Unions play an important and often unrecognised role in referring families to experienced law firms
to advise them and, if necessary, assist them pursue their legal entitlements. The vast majority offamilies opt to pursue a workers’ compensation claim rather than civil litigation because it is quicker
and their financial entitlements are clearly specified. Further, as one union official indicated, civil
litigation is also more emotionally taxing:
Common law, by definition, involves an inquiry, a very close examination of what the causeof the death was and if it could have been prevented. It’s obviously a lot more stressful for the
defendants involved because there’s the consideration of what could have been done to avoid
the death. (Union #6)
Given the complexities of subcontracting relationships, experienced legal advice was, if anything, evenmore critical:
The person may be self-employed, they may be a contractor, but it may be that somebody else
is potentially at fault and has liability. For example, the head contractor or one of the othermajor contractors may have caused the accident, but it requires an experienced lawyer toinvestigate the full circumstances to see if there is a case there for the family. (Union #6)
One problem in this regard was that relatively few self-employed workers belong to unions.
Nonetheless, the extent of subcontracting in some industries, such as construction and road transport,
and declining union membership more generally, has significantly constrained unions’ capacity toassist workers – a point recognised by both support groups, who commonly did include the families ofcontractors, and workers’ compensation agencies.
Because all the contractors aren’t members of the unions the union doesn’t give them any
support, like as if they were a union member. They’re compassionate towards them, of course.
They’re a bit like insurance. You don’t pay your premium, you don’t get the support. (Support
Group/Service #5)
If they’re an employee, there’s a chance they belong to a union and that the union will actually
give them a lot of advice with the [compensation claim] – and [also] if they have to go for acommon law settlement... But if they’re self-employed, they’re almost never a union member,so they don’t have any resources to fall back on at all for advice. (Government Compensation
Agency #4)
14

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 1-23
In addition to assisting claimants, unions also advocated improvements in workers’ compensation
benefits and opposed reductions in benefits, for example in relation to journey-related claims. Like
several employer representatives, union officials interviewed referred to the severe financial strain thatwork-related death placed on families. In at least one case, unions received influential support from afamily support group in securing improved lump sum benefits and changes to dependency
requirements.

2. Investigation and Prosecution
Unions may carry out their own inquiries following a workplace death, provide information to
government safety inspectors, and attend court hearings, often with the family. Most unioninterviewees expressed confidence in government safety inspectors, indicating they had good working
relations with inspectors and recognised the need for independence in the investigation and prosecution
process. One interviewee did question how important information was withheld from them:
So when there is a fatality and the regulator is involved – and we know the inspectors andthe investigators; we know them personally. We ask them questions about – ‘what can you
tell us?’ The shutters come down. We think that’s unfortunate because the regulator
actually knows that we have exposure to these issues; we have experience. Whereas theyalso know that usually the organisation they’re dealing with has never encountered it
before. (Union #5)
Like some employers, union representatives were critical of the increasingly conspicuous role of law
firms in dictating responses, including restricting access to information to anyone other than theregulatory authority. Like some managers, they believed this approach had potentially adverse effects
on OHS:
The flaw in that position is that [any] immediate threat emerging from that incident thatthey may be aware of, that would be applicable to other workplaces tomorrow, doesn’tcome out until 18 months from now. I want to know what it is that might kill some of mymembers in workplaces – and I want to tell them, ‘here’s an alert; be wary of this’. (Union#5)
Withholding information can have potential repercussions for the family, who often find it increasingly
difficult to obtain information about the exact cause(s) and nature of the death, or about processes
taking place (Snell & Tombs, 2011; Matthews, Quinlan, et al., 2012; Matthews et al., 2014). Union
representatives also expressed concern about delays in court proceedings resulting from the use oftechnical objections by law firms. This point was echoed by safety regulators, one of whom cited arecent case in which technical appeals reached the High Court (where they were rejected) and theactual prosecution trial was held up for over a year.
Conversely, unions were critical of the failure of safety regulators to always keep families informed ofproceedings or to appreciate their desire for accountability and justice.
I’ve heard [of] situations where people don’t even realise prosecutions have gone to court...
One of the things that I think the authorities don’t get is, it’s not just about the money or
the fine, it’s actually having a process that recognises something really bad has happened
15

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 1-23
and [that] we are doing the best we possibly can to get some justice at the end of the day.
(Union #4)

3. Coronial Inquest
Unions indicated they tried to ensure officials or their legal representatives attended coronial inquests,
made submissions to them on occasion (in one road transport case this evidence was cited at length incoroner’s findings), and supported family members. A major union concern was the falling number ofworkplace deaths that were subject to a full coronial inquest. Whether a full inquest is held depends
on various factors but resourcing was seen to play an important role.
There are two reasons why you see less workplace deaths in coroner’s courts. One is, I believe,
the coroners haven’t got the resources they would like to have… Two, there is, I feel, a pushfrom [government safety inspectorate] to turn these into paper investigations and [to] keep thecoroner out of it. (Union #6)
Unlike most investigations in which there is no subsequent prosecution, coronial findings are madepublic and were seen to provide information not found in a safety investigation:[The families] just want to know what happened. I believe that the coronial processactually does play a very important role in answering some of the family’squestions…Faced with the death of a loved one most people do want to know what
happened or at least know what the last person who saw them can tell you about theirsituation before the death. (Union #6)
Because coronial findings can also make recommendations aimed at preventing similar deaths, unions
saw coronial inquests as performing an important role in delivering some level of justice to the family.
One interviewee claimed the reduction in the number of workplace deaths subject to coronial inquests
resulted in less media coverage and understanding of workplace death in the community.

Discussion: Putting the findings into context
This study examined the views of employers and unions regarding their responses to work-related
death and the problems experienced by surviving families. The findings are firstly discussed in thecontext of criminal law processes that follow a work-related death. They are then viewed in light of
their relevance for industrial relations research and policy.
In regard to set procedures for dealing with work-related deaths, larger firms had formal protocols for
dealing with emergency situations that were not specific to work deaths but were used in thesecircumstances. In some cases, these protocols included making contact with families. Although unions
lacked written protocols they did have well-established, although unwritten, procedures that could
accommodate differing circumstances, including methods of communicating with mixed families.
Three of the four unions – and the CFMEU in particular – had made efforts to broaden their
engagement with families through activities like memorial walls or parks, aiding support groups andoffering some assistance to families of non-union members. To a large degree, the views of union andemployer representatives about their role and the problems encountered were confirmed in interviews
with representatives of other organisations, such as government agencies and support groups.
16New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 1-23
Significant areas of agreement between employer and union representatives about the problems
experienced by families following a workplace death were identified. These included the length oftime it took for issues like investigations and coronial inquests to be resolved, the financial strain on
families, especially where the worker was self-employed, and problematic role of legal firms in termsof the release of information. These problems are common to families experiencing a sudden death(see also Malone, 2009; Riches & Dawson, 1998) and stem from post-death formalities that are shapedby legal rules that pursue broad social objectives rather than the needs of families (Gunningham, 2007).
While some employers and unions had developed ways of supporting families with these problems(e.g., one large firm had a chaplain service that could assist families), there was no evidence that these
initiatives were widespread practices. Whether union and employer responses in New Zealand aresimilar to those found in this study and the effect of a universal accident compensation scheme in termsof the financial strain on families is worthy of investigation.
There were also important differences between employers and unions, notably in terms of contact withthe family (and even whether it should occur in the case of the employer) and the more central role
unions played advising and supporting families. Given employers’ roles and responsibilities to thelegal system following a work-related death often limited their ability to make contact with families,
these findings were not unexpected. Unions and employers also had differing views on the value ofinvestigations and prosecutions by safety regulators and coronial inquests (for example, see Schofield,
Reeve, & McCallum, 2009; Gunningham, 2007), formal processes that are known to be problematic
yet important for families in seeking information, involvement and justice (Matthews et al., 2014).
These differing views reflect the wider debate about the role of prosecution in OHS deterrence andprevention, and the often forgotten retributive functions of the prosecution that helps to meet thelegitimate needs of families and communities for accountability and justice (Gunningham, 2007).
The adversarial nature of the legal processes following a sudden death and the impact they have on
employers, managers, workers, and families have been previously reported in the literature (Matthews
et al., 2014; Schofield, Reeve, & McCallum, 2009; Riches & Dawson, 1998; Malone, 2009; Urban
Ministry Network, 2000). An adversarial legal approach not only limits contact between employers,
safety inspectorate, and families but has been reported as aggravating conflict between parties (King,
2006). For this reason, the value of a restorative justice approach following work-related deaths(Brookes, 2009; Gunningham, 2007; Braithwaite, 2002) is gaining traction in Australia (King, 2006).
Restorative justice provides opportunities for parties to discuss what happened, how people wereaffected, and what needs to be done to repair or make amends for the harm, to make sure it does not
happen again, and to bring about positive changes for all those concerned, This approach is particularly
relevant given the prosecution of approximately 50 per cent of work-related deaths in Australia(SafeWork Australia, 2012).
Having raised these points, this study is only the first step in understanding employer and union
responses to traumatic work-related deaths and to surviving families, and its findings should be treatedwith caution. Most of the employers interviewed were from large organisations and this, together withthe hazardous nature of the industries considered, means it is difficult to generalise the findings.
Nonetheless, the study provides some guidance for future research and it also raises issues of wider
significance to the field of industrial relations.
In terms of the relevance of the study to industrial relations research and policy debates, several points
can be made. First, some of the findings reflect well-known differences in terms of industry features,
firm size, and union presence as well as general trends, particularly the growth of selfemployment/subcontracting and declining union density. Nevertheless, while the effects on working
17

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 1-23
conditions of subcontracting have been extensively documented in the industrial relations literature(see for example, Sobczak, 2004), this study points to the profound effects this has on the families
following work-related death in terms of access to financial and other support. Of course, this point
has broader relevance to the families of self-employed workers experiencing serious but non-fatal
injuries. It highlights an important and growing gap in the social protection regime resulting fromchanges to work arrangements over the past 30 years (Quinlan & Mayhew, 1999). As this regulatory
gap affects industrial relations institutions and processes, it warrants greater attention from industrial
relations scholars.
Second, this study provides evidence about an area of union activity that, aside from some treatmentof workers’ compensation, has received little attention in the industrial relations literature. To varying
degrees, unions provide an important set of social protection activities, including assisting families
secure workers’ compensation or common law settlements, obtaining information on thecircumstances of the death and advocating on their behalf during the investigation and coronial inquest.
The conflicts of interests or role that occur at work over issues, such as wages and job security, extend
to OHS, including what happens after work-related death. In the latter case, notwithstanding someareas of agreement, unions become advocates for the family in dealing with employers and government
agencies, such as safety regulators, who have a different and sometimes conflicting agenda. The labour
movement’s interest in family related issues is longstanding (as is well evidenced, for example, inpublic inquiries into labour conditions in the UK, Australia and elsewhere in the late 19th/early 20th
century) but has taken on new forms as working arrangements and social conditions and expectations
have changed. One example of this is union involvement in contemporary debates on family/workbalance (see for example, Rigby & O’Brien-Smith, 2010). On the one hand, this study indicates that,as in other areas, declining union density is eroding their capacity to represent the families of thosekilled at work. On the other hand, the study also found that some unions in particular were attempting
to build a broader community relationship through their activities in this area. This activity can be seen
as another example of the wider social campaigning and networking in OHS and other areas that could
provide avenues for union renewal (Jarley, 2005; Quinlan & Sokas, 2009).

Conclusion
Traumatic work-related death remains a serious issue even in developed countries, such as Australia,
Canada, and the USA. The incidence of work-related death remains significantly higher in fourindustry sectors – farming, fishing and forestry, mining, construction and road transport. In theseindustries, in particular, employers and unions are likely to be aware of this risk, if not actual events(certainly our interviewees were). Nonetheless, the impact of work-related deaths on families and how
institutions deal with these events has received little attention from researchers.
Within industrial relations and other disciplines, the way that unions and employers deal with traumatic
injuries and fatalities in the workplaces they cover has been neglected, apart from studies examining
struggles over workers’ compensation or safety. Though important, workers’ compensation and safety
are part of a wider array of issues/processes, organisations, groups and individuals that unions andemployers must address following a serious injury at work. While families may become involved incases of serious injury where the worker dies, the impact on the family is especially acute and alsoentails their direct involvement in some institutional processes. Further, these processes involve acomplex array of economic, social and human considerations that both unions and employers must
address. This study sought to provide insights into these interactions by examining employer and union
responses to work-related death in the four industries examined. One significant finding was that the18

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 1-23
threat of common law liability and increased role of corporate law firms was a significant barrier to
employer response. Another significant challenge to both employers and unions were the the delays
and complexity of the Australian workers’ compensation system, and the complicating situation
regarding self-employed workers whose families were large confined to the common law option.
Another finding was the importance role played by unions in advising families and helping them tonavigate this system. Unfortunately, with some exceptions this was only available when the worker
was a union member. While not explicitly addressed by this study, the decline in union density andrise of subcontracting/self-employment is likely to deny this input for a large number of workers. At amore positive level, our study also found union involvement in social networks which aimed torepresent and assist families extended the reach of assistance to non-union workers.

References
Alexander, D. (1990). Psychological intervention for victims and helpers after disasters. British
Journal of General Practice, 40, 345-348.
Alexander, D. (1991). Psychiatric intervention after the Piper Alpha disaster. Journal of the Royal
Society of Medicine, 84, 8-11.
Anderson, V.P., Schulte, P.A., Sestito, J., Linn, H., & Ngyuen, L.S. (2010). Occupational Fatalities,
Injuries, Illnesses, and Related Economic Loss in the Wholesale and Retail Trade Sector. American
Journal of Industrial Medicine, 53(7), 673-685. doi: 10.1002/ajim.20813.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2008). Work: Trade union members. Retrieved fromhttp://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Chapter7202008.
Braithwaite, J. (2002). Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Brookes, D., (2009). Restorative justice and work–related death: Consultation report. Melbourne:
Creative Ministries Network.
Dembe, A.E. (2001). The social consequences of occupational injuries and illnesses. American
Journal of Industrial Medicine, 40(4), 403-417. doi: 10.1002/ajim.1113.
DeSantis, L., & Ugarriza, D.N. (2000). The Concept of Theme as Used in Qualitative Nursing
Research. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 22(3), 351-372. doi:
10.1177/019394590002200308.
Dorman, P., & Hagston, P. (1998). Wage compensation for dangerous work revisited. Industrial andLabor Relations Review, 52(1), 116-135.
Gunningham, N. (2007). Prosecution for OHS offences: deterrent of disincentive? Sydney Law
Review, 29(3), 359-390.
Holland, P., & Pyman, A. (2011). Trade unions and corporate campaigning in a global economy: Thecase of James Hardie. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 33(4), 555-579.
19

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 1-23
Hyatt, D., & Kralj, B. (2000). The impact of representation and other factors on the outcomes of
employee-initiated workers' compensation appeals. Industrial and Labor Relations Review,
53(4):665-683.
ILO, International Labour Organization. (2003). Safety in numbers: Pointers for a global safety
culture at work. Geneva: International Labour Organization
Jarley, P. (2005). Unions as social capital: Renewal through a return to the logic of mutual aid?
Labor Studies Journal, 29(4),1-26.
King, M.S. (2006). Therapeutic jurisprudence in Australia: New directions in courts, legal practice,research and legal education. Journal of Judicial Administration, 15, 129-141.
Kirsh, B., & McKee, P. (2003). The needs and experiences of injured workers: A participatory
research study. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 21(3), 221-231.
Lee, G. (1994). Death in the workplace. AAOHN Journal, 42(12), 590-594.
Lippel, K. (2007). Workers describe the effect of the workers' compensation process on their health:A Québec study. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 30(4–5), 427-443. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2007.06.013.
Malone, L. (2009). Supporting people bereaved through homicide. Bereavement Care, 26(3), 51-53.
Matthews, L.R., Bohle, P., Quinlan, M., Rawlings-Way, O. (2012). Traumatic death at work:
Consequences for surviving families. International Journal of Health Services, 42(4), 647-666.
Matthews, L.R., Fitzpatrick, S.J., Bohle, P., & Quinlan, M. (2014). Investigation and prosecution
following workplace fatalities: Responding to the needs of families. The Economic and Labour
Relations Review, 25(2), 253-270.
Matthews, L.R., Quinlan, M., Rawlings-Way, O., & Bohle, P. (2012). The adequacy of institutional
responses to death at work: Experiences of surviving families. International Journal of Disability
Management, 6(1), 37-48.
Mays, N., & Pope, C., (2000). Assessing quality in qualitative research. British Medical Journal,
320, 50-52.
Quinlan, M., Bohle, P., & Lamm, F. (2010). Managing Occupational Health and Safety: A
Multidisciplinary Approach (3rd ed.). Melbourne: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Quinlan, M., Fitzpatrick., S.J., Matthews, L.R., Ngo, M., & Bohle, P. (2015). Administering the costof death: Organisational perspectives on workers' compensation and common law claims following
traumatic death at work in Australia. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 38(1), 1-10.
Quinlan, M., & Johnstone, R. (2009). The implications of de-collectivist industrial relations laws andassociated developments for worker health and safety in Australia, 1996-2007. Industrial Relations
Journal, 40(5), 426-443.
20

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 1-23
Quinlan, M., & Mayhew, C. (1999). Precarious employment and workers' compensation.
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22(5&6) 491-520.
Quinlan, M., & Sokas, R. (2009). Community campaigns, supply chains and protecting the healthand wellbineg of workers: Examples from Australia and the USA. American Journal of Public
Health, 99(Supplement 3), s538-546.
Riches, G., & Dawson, P. (1998). Spoiled memories: Problems of grief resolution in families
bereaved through murder. Mortality, 3, 143-159.
Rigby, M., & O’Brien-Smith, F. (2010). Trade union interventions in work-life balance. Work
Employment & Society, 24(2), 203-220.
Risby, T., de Silva, H.M., & Tong, A. (2007). Road crash cost estimation: a proposal incorporatinga decade of conceptual and empirical development. Canberra: Department of Transport and Regional
Services
Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. (2002). Qualititative data analysis for applied policy research. In A.M.
Huberman and M.B. Miles (eds.), The qualitative researcher's companion (pp. 305-330). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
SafeWork Australia. (2012). The cost of work-related injury and illness for Australian employers,
workers and the community: 2008-09. Retrieved fromhttp://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/SWA/about/Publications/Documents/660/Cost%20of%20
Work-related%20injury%20and%20disease.pdf
SafeWork Australia. (2015). The cost of work-related injury and illness for Australian employers,
workers and the community: 2012-13. Retrieved fromhttp://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/SWA/about/Publications/Documents/940/cost-of-workrelated-injury-and-disease-2012-13.docx.pdf
Schofield, T., Reeve, B., & McCallum, R. (2009). Deterrence and OHS prosecutions: prosecuted
employers' responses. Journal of Occupational Health and Safety Australia and New Zealand, 25,
263-276.
Sinclair, A., & Haines, F. (1993). Deaths in the workplace and dynamics of response. Journal ofContingencies and Crisis Management, 1(3), 125-137. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5973.1993.tb00015.x.
Snell, K., & Tombs, S. (2011). How do you get your voice heard when no-one will let you?
Victimization at work. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 11(3), 207-223. doi:
10.1177/1748895811401985.
Sobczak, A. (2004). The social responsibility of the firm: Menace or opportunity for labour law?
Relations Industrielles, 59(1), 26-51.
Underhill, E., & Quinlan, M. (2011). How precarious employment affects health and safety at work:
The case of temporary agency workers. Relations Industrielles, 66(3), 397-421.

21

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 1-23
Urban Ministry Network. (2000). “I think about him every day”: Transforming the grief of workrelated death into renewed workplace safety. St. Kilda: Creative Ministries Network.

22

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 1-23

Notes
1

This article presents results from the first phase of a multi-method study of institutional responses toworkplace death using data from 48 in-depth interviews with organisations involved in workplace
death in Australia. Specifically, it examines the attitude and responses of unions and employers totraumatic work-related death in four industry sectors with a relatively high incidence of such fatalities:
road transport, construction, mining, agriculture fishing and forestry. The aim was to identify criticalinstitutional processes and relationships and their implications for industrial relations and for victims’
families. To this end, employer and union responses were examined, regarding initial contact, workers’
compensation, investigation and prosecution, and the coronial inquest. Protocols and supports to deal
with these events, and the extent to which they assisted families, were examined. In addition, the study
explored how other relevant institutions, such as safety inspectorates and support and advocacy groups,
viewed union and employer responses.
Results indicated that employers tended to have documented protocols for responding to serious
incidents, unions had established responses, but they were generally not formally documented. The
responses of unions involved the provision of clear practical support to families, including legal andcounselling supports, information provision and assistance in accessing financial benefits. Contact
with families was also a feature of employers’ responses, especially the larger organisations that
employed chaplains, but concern was also expressed that contact with families may be inappropriate
or legally problematic. Employers and unions both raised concerns about how legal processes
following a death delayed families and employers accessing information on the circumstances that led
to it and the impacts of delays on occupational health and safety and the health and wellbeing offamilies and workers. These findings suggest that employers and unions could play different, butconstructive, roles following a work-related death. More research is required on how employers andunions deal with fatalities and serious injuries/illnesses arising from work.
2

A second option available in terms of securing monetary redress following injury or death at work inAustralia and some other countries – and one especially important to those excluded from workers’
compensation such as most self-employed workers – is for the family (in the case of traumatic workrelated death) to pursue a claim for damages at common law, usually under the tort of negligence or
breach of contract, against the person or organisation held responsible for the worker’s death. Unlike
workers’ compensation, this is a fault-based remedy where the level of entitlement is not specified but
decided on a case by case basis according to general rules.
3

In the state of New South Wales unions too have had the right to initiate a prosecution though limited
use was made of it and there have been no such cases to our knowledge in the last five years.

23

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 24-43

Women and Careers: New Zealand Women’s Engagement inCareer and Family Planning
SARAH USSHER*, MAREE ROCHE** and DONALD CABLE***
Abstract
How career commitment, career salience, subjective career success, and proactive personality
impact on career planning for women is the focus of this paper. Additionally, women havefurther complications in career planning as they consider family as well as career decisions,which suggests that women’s career paths are generally regarded as complex. This study
investigated 178 New Zealand women without children, regarding the extent that non-mothers
engage in career planning, including the extent that future family planning considerations
influence their career plans. We also examined the role of career planning with proactive
personality, subjective career success, commitment and salience of women’s careers and role
as a parent. Results suggest women feel a need to choose between a career and a family.
Furthermore, high parental role commitment and salience increased the likelihood of alteredcareer plans to accommodate family whilst high career commitment and salience decreased thelikelihood of altered career plans to accommodate family. Implications include the need fororganisations to identify contingency plans for women’s career planning, and consideration incareer management programs.
Keywords: women, careers, career planning, family planning, commitment, salience, career
satisfaction, proactive personality.

Introduction
Compared to 30 years ago there are more women present in the workforce, and women now
have more opportunities and choices available to them regarding their ability to negotiate
around the different life roles available to them (Novakovic & Fouad, 2013; Vinkenburg, Van
Hattem, Ossenkop & Dikkers, 2013). Within a research context, two life roles are salient.
Firstly, how having a family can affect career opportunities, and secondly, how career decisions
can influence decisions around family priorities (Fetterolf & Eagly, 2011; Friedman &Weissbrod, 2005). While these are increasingly understood, what is less understood are theperspectives of women who are about to enter their careers, who are currently childless, andtheir current perceptions around decision making with regards to a career and a family.
Ultimately, this research seeks to address this gap.
Family responsibilities do have constraints on women and men’s careers (Covin & Brush,1991), it is generally expected that conflict between life roles occur for men and womenregarding career, marriage, and parenthood roles (Kerpelman & Schvaneveldt, 1999).
Women’s career building stage or establishment stage typically coincides with the peak of theirfertility, thus, women may be faced with decisions or expect a trade-off between having a careerand having children, that men may not necessarily face (Brown & Diekman, 2010; Ezzedeen& Ritchey, 2009; Fetterolf & Eagly, 2011; Friedman & Weissbrod, 2005). The approach*

Organisational Psychology graduate, University of Waikato. s.ussher3@gmail.com
Senior Lecturer Organisational Psychology, University of Waikato. mroche@waikato.ac.nz***
Teaching Fellow, University of Waikato. dcable@waikato.ac.nz**

24New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 24-43
women take to integrate a career and family is an important topic to explore as it has an impact
on women’s lives in two major areas – their career life and their family life (O’Brein, Friedman,
Tipton, & Linn, 2000). Women’s career paths are generally regarded as being more complex
than those of men as women have been found to make career decisions and plans to integrate
and accommodate having a family (O’Brein et al., 2000) and childbearing has been found to
be a limiting factor for a women’s career (Larwood & Gutek, 1987). Hewlett, Buck-Luce,
Shiller, and Southwell (2005) examined why women take time out of their careers and found
the reasons typically had to do with family (childcare or aging parents) or that they are unable
to fulfil their responsibilities at home and work. The most common reason for women leaving
their careers was to increase time with their children, cited by nearly half (45 percent) of their
participants. Not only is leaving the workforce difficult for women, but it is also difficult reentering it given that women were often penalised in terms of their earning capacity (Hewlett
et al., 2005). Nowak, Naudé, and Thomas (2012) found working female professionals
acknowledged the presence of these complexities, which included the constraints of career
progression and training, reduced opportunities for advancement, and thus overall restrictions
on their future career due to making the decision to have a family. Miree and Frieze (1999)
found 88 percent of their female participants chose to reduce their hours or exit the workforce
or prioritise their children, after having children. Overall research suggests that, for women,
having children can have a negative effect on a career.
Sheryl Sandberg, chief operating officer at Facebook, published a book titled ‘Lean in: Women,
work, and the will to lead’ (Sandberg & Scovell, 2013). It reviews a wide range of issues
regarding women in the workforce. She pointed out that women, at an early age, face a dilemma– the choice between having a good career or being a good mother. She and others note thatwomen are opting out (leaning out) of their careers prematurely to accommodate for a family
that does not currently exist; they pre-emptively plan to accommodate for having a family atthe expense of current career planning and engagement (Ganginis Del Pino, O’Brien, Mereish,& Miller, 2013; Sandberg & Scovell, 2013).
Women’s resistance towards developing career plans due to the perception that future childrearing is incompatible with a demanding career (including long hours, relocation, andweekends) focussed on the concept of women leaving careers psychologically before they
depart, or at least before they invest in careers (Farmer, 1997). “Women leaving before theyleave” (ibid: 93) was further developed by Sandberg and Scovell (2013). Overall, this involves
a woman’s hesitancy to accept career opportunities based on the expectation that she will havea family and, therefore, needs to prepare herself and her career to accommodate a family(Sandberg & Scovell, 2013). This concept suggests that women turn down career advancement
due to anticipating children in the future, and the concern of over-commitment at work
(Ganginis Del Pino et al., 2013; Sandberg & Scovell, 2013). While Sandberg and Scovell(2013) popularised this notion, research more widely supports the idea that a woman’s careerplanning is influenced by her plans to have children in the future (Ganginis Del Pino et al.,2013; Marks & Houston, 2002; O’Brein et al., 2000).
Not only is it suggested that women’s career plans are developed with consideration toaccommodate family plans, but consideration of family plans also influences women’s
educational aspirations. Marks and Houston (2002) found the plans of young female students
to attain higher educational qualifications were influenced by their attitudes about working.
This is what Sandberg referred to as leaning out of one’s career (Sandberg & Scovell, 2013).
The phenomenon being that women’s plans to have a family negatively influence their careerplans, that is choosing not to progress in their career due to expecting children in the near or
far future, this relates to the leaning out stage – once women are in a career. Shann (1983)
reported that women became less specific about future career plans around the time they started
25

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 24-43
considering factors such as marriage, family and childcare. Shann also reported that women
preferred to combine both work and childcare, and were inclined to express consideration ofplans to accommodate family responsibilities in combination with part-time employment. Thissuggests importantly that women do factor childrearing into their career plans.
The aim of this research was to examine women’s salience and commitment to a career and theparental role. Additionally, we examine women’s proactive personality and subjective career
success, as well as how these variables relate to career and planning a family below.
Career management, age and education
Career self-management is defined as the extent to which an individual gathers information
regularly, engages in career maintenance, and plans for career problem solving and decision
making (Kossek, Roberts, Fisher, & Demarr, 1998). It involves actively engaging in one’s own
career development and career planning, which guides career decision-making, as well as
anticipating and adapting to changes, opportunities, and obstacles in a proactive
manner (Brown & Lent, 2013; Kossek et al., 1998). King (2004) argued that individuals who
were highly self-motivated and highly skilled at adapting to change in the work environment
would find career self-management highly beneficial. In contrast, less motivated and skilledindividuals, who struggle to utilise personal resources, may struggle to engage in career selfmanagement. Career self-management has positive consequences, such as increased career andlife satisfaction, self-efficacy and well-being. However, these outcomes are only evident if thedesired career outcomes or goals are achieved (ibid).
This research examines whether there is a relationship between planning to have a family andcareer planning; this research also looks at age and education as well as whether they haverelationships with career planning. Gould (1979) hypothesised that the stabilisation(establishment) career stage (31-44 years old) would be where individuals would have thegreatest incentive to engage in career planning. This suggests that age may not be specificallyrelated to career planning as job transitions, such as voluntary job change, career transitions,or job loss, may cause individuals to recycle through the career stages of exploration andestablishment (Hartung, 2013). However, Carson and Bedeian (1994) found career planning tohave a negative relationship with age (r=-0.09). Although the relationship was small, itsuggests that, as individuals age, the extent that they engage in career planning will decrease.
Regarding education, Carson and Bedeian (1994) found evidence that career planning had apositive relationship with education (r=0.16). Additionally, career planning was positively
related to the intention to pursue graduate education (r=0.14), as well as being significantly
related to applications to graduate education programs (r=0.19) (Seibert, Kraimer, Holtom, &Pierotti, 2013). This suggests that, as an individual’s education level increases, engagement incareer planning increases. Based on the evidence this research provides, we hypothesised thatcareer planning would be negatively related to age and that career planning would be positively
related to education.
Hypothesis 1: Career planning will be negatively related to age. Therefore, as anindividual’s age increases their engagement in career planning will decrease.
Hypothesis 2: Career planning will be positively related to education. That is, individuals
with higher levels of education will be more likely to engage in career planning.

26

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 24-43

Proactive personality and subjective career success
Proactive personality describes a person who has a relatively stable disposition towards
exhibiting proactive behaviours and is typically unconstrained by changes in the environmentand by situational forces (Bateman & Crant, 1993; Seibert, Crant, & Kraimer, 1999). Proactive
individuals typically show initiative, recognise opportunities and take advantage of theseopportunities, take action and persevere in situations to make changes that are meaningful(Crant, 1995). Less proactive individuals tend to react to changes in their environment rather
than initiating it (Bateman & Crant, 1993; Seibert et al., 1999). Pazy (1988) found proactive
personality positively related to career planning. Frese, Fay, Hilburger, Leng, and Tag (1997)
found that individuals with high initiative were more inclined to engage in career planning(r=0.37) and more inclined to execute that career plan (r=0.26) than individuals low on
initiative. Proactive behaviours, for instance engaging in career planning and seeking career
feedback, are reported to enhance the likelihood that an individual will experience extrinsic
rewards and an intrinsically satisfying career (Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001). Based on thisevidence, we hypothesised that proactive personality would be positively related to careerplanning.
Hypothesis 3: Proactive personality will be positively related to career planning.
Subjective career success (SCS), also regarded as career satisfaction, is defined as anindividual’s feelings of satisfaction and accomplishment with their careers (Seibert et al.,1999). Career satisfaction has been found to have a significant positive relationship with careerplanning (r=0.14) (Aryee & Debrah, 1993). Career planning was found to be a significant
predictor of SCS (r=0.33), which was a stronger predictor than that of salary (a component ofobjective career success) (Ng, Eby, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005). Based on this evidence, wehypothesised that SCS would be positively related to career planning.
Hypothesis 4a: Subjective career success (career satisfaction) will be positively related
to career planning.
King (2004) argued that career self-management could be beneficial for highly skilled workers
who were self-motivated and would find ways to adapt to a work environment that is everchanging. Additionally, engaging in career self-management may result in positive outcomes
for the individual, including career satisfaction; increased level of self-efficacy, increased levelof well-being, and positive outcomes for life satisfaction, on the condition that the career
outcomes are achieved (King, 2004). Proactive personality has been reported to have asignificant relationship with career satisfaction (r=0.31) (Seibert et al., 1999), (r=0.27) (Seibert
et al., 2001), (r=0.20) (Erdogan & Bauer, 2005), and the relationship was found to be partiallymediated by career initiative, innovation, and political knowledge (Seibert et al., 2001). Ng etal. (2005) found proactive personality to be a significant predictor of SCS (r=0.38). Based on
this evidence we hypothesised that proactive personality would be positively related to SCS.
Hypothesis 4b: Proactive personality will be positively related to subjective career
success (career satisfaction).
Career commitment
Career commitment is defined as an individual’s dedication to their career and to work towards
their professional advancement, characterised by the development of career goals, which theindividual develops, identifies with, and persists in their efforts to achieve their career goals
27

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 24-43(Carson & Bedeian, 1994; Colarelli & Bishop, 1990). Career commitment is considered toextend over a long period of time, and it takes dedication and persistence to achieve the careerthat the individual aspires to, despite any challenges that occur (Colarelli & Bishop, 1990).
This persistence and commitment to the goal is more likely to be exhibited when individuals
have established plans to achieve their goals (King, 2004). Friedman and Weissbrod (2005)
found that individuals thinking about a career and thinking about their career plans indicatedcareer commitment. Additionally, they found that career decision-making regarding careerplans was positively related to work/career commitment. Aryee and Debrah (1993) illustrated
that career planning had a significant relationship with career commitment, (r=0.5). Driver(2004) found that career management practices (including career planning, goal setting,preparation for the future, leadership, and many other practices) were positively related to, andwere significant predictors of, career commitment (r=0.50). Based on the evidence this research
provides, we hypothesised that career commitment would be positively related to careerplanning.
Hypothesis 5a: Career commitment will be positively related to career planning.
Blau (1989) argued that career resilience was a component of career commitment, as it
demonstrated how much an individual valued their career and their persistence against career
disruptions. Career resilience is also regarded as having the ability to adapt to changing
environments, and resisting discouraging and disruptive circumstances (King, 2004; London& Noe, 1997). This notion that career resilience is a component of career commitment is similar
to the concept of proactive personality, that it is an ability to be unconstrained by changes inthe environment and situational forces (Bateman & Crant, 1993). Vandenberghe and Ok (2013)
found that career commitment had a strong positive relationship with proactive personality(r=0.29). Furthermore, Morgan, Walker, Wang, and Aven (2012) found that career
commitment and proactive personality had a positive relationship (r=0.26), although thissample was predominantly male. Based on this evidence, we hypothesised that career
commitment and proactive personality, as defined in the literature reviewed, would bepositively related.
Hypothesis 5b: Career commitment will be positively related to proactive personality.
Career salience and career planning
Career salience relates to the importance of a career to an individual (Greenhaus, 1973). Careersalience is defined as the relative priority, centrality, and personal significance a career has
within an individual’s life in relation to other life roles (Allen & Ortlepp, 2002; Cleveland,
Stockdale, & Murphy, 2000; White, Cox, & Cooper, 1992). Crozier (1999) suggested thatcareer planning was not just planning for a work role, but was also planning for significant liferoles. It is important to point out that career salience, as well as the salience of other life roles,
can vary during different periods of an individual’s lifetime, indicating what an individual finds
salient at one point in their life may be different at another point in their life (ibid, 1999).
Research has found that individuals who scored highly for career salience had a higher value
for intrinsic rewards (Greenhaus & Simon, 1977). Farmer (1997) suggested that careerplanning should be regarded as taking place within life plans and that career plans need to take
into account other life roles, including parenthood roles and personal roles. Farmer regarded
women as being prone to experiencing work-life conflict and, thus, need to think about whatroles are important to them. These authors found that career salience in women had a negative
relationship to home role salience (r=-0.27). Nevill and Super (1988) found that, among
university students, women were more highly committed to their work and home roles than themen. Chao and Malik (1988) argued that the salience of a woman’s career could influence her
28

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 24-43
career involvement and future planning. Bachiochi (2013) found that career salience waspredictive of career planning (R2 =0.18) as well as career exploration (R2 =0.21). Peters’ (1991)
research illustrated that highly work salient women do make plans regarding making family
and career commitments to accommodate each other. Based on the evidence, this body ofresearch provides, we hypothesised that career salience would be positively related to careerplanning.
Hypothesis 6: Career salience will be positively related to career planning.
Family planning, parental commitment and salience
Some women delay starting a family due to their careers (Kerpelman & Schvaneveldt, 1999),
and where work is more salient, women have fewer children, postpone starting a family, andmake career choices over family choices. While this varies over by age and life stage, generally
career orientations are negatively correlated with planning to have a family. Work salient
women were found to plan fewer children and start childbearing older (Peters, 1991). Ganginis
Del Pino et al. (2013) found career-orientation to be negatively related to considering children
within the career plans scale (planning to have a family). Ganginis Del Pino et al. argued thatwomen who considered a future family when making career choices were expected to have lowscores towards being career-oriented, as they would prioritise children over a career. This may
result in young women creating pseudo-career plans; that is, not making any concrete plans orcommitments to vocational choices or allowances to include family plans (Crozier,1999). Based on this evidence we hypothesised that planning to have a family would be
negatively related to career planning.
Hypothesis 7: Planning to have a family will be negatively related to career planning.
The age at which women are having their first child has increased, with the suggestion that thismay be due to prioritising careers, and education. The ‘Median and average age of first time
mothers, nuptial and total live confinements from 1962–2009’ statistics from Statistics New
Zealand, illustrates that, over 47 years, the average age of women having their first childincreased from 23 years to 30 years old (Statistics New Zealand, 2009). One reason why
women postpone starting their families may be due to career planning and education.
Gufstasson (2001) suggested that women, with pre-parental human capital, tend to delay births.
A suggested reason was that more highly educated women delay births so that they were at lessrisk of job skill decay, they could increase their lifetime earnings, and that they did not see
themselves as able to afford much time out of the workforce to have children (Gufstasson,
2001; Happel, Hill, & Low, 1984). Based on this evidence, we hypothesised that education
would have a negative relationship to planning to have a family.
Hypothesis 8: Education will be negatively related to planning to have a family.
Parental role commitment is defined as the individual’s willingness to dedicate their personal
resources, time, and energy, to ensure that the role as a parent is successfully performed(Amatea, Cross, Clark, & Bobby, 1986). Parental role reward value, referred to as parental rolesalience, is defined as the extent that the individual regards the parental role as being
significant, and from which they gain personal satisfaction (ibid, 1986). Parental role saliencerefers to a women’s willingness to dedicate her time, energy and resources to being a successfulparent. The parental role is valued and, as such, is a source of significant personal satisfaction.
High parental role commitment and high parental role salience (family-centred) suggest that,when making decisions, the parental/family role will have the highest priority, whilst decisions
29

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 24-43
around career are given less priority. Whitmarsh, Brown, Cooper, Hawkins-Rodgers, andDiane (2007) found that women negotiated their career decisions based on how salient theirwork and family responsibilities were in their lives. They found that, for women, the trajectoryof their career reflected what they felt was most important within their lives, whether that is tocombine having a family and a career, to not have children, or to compromise their career toaccommodate having a family. They found that a majority of women chose to combine theircareer with their motherhood roles within their life plan (Whitmarsh et al., 2007). Hakim (2007)
suggested women with high career commitment and high career salience are career-centred.
Their decisions give career the highest priority. Women with high parental role commitment
and high parental role salience are family centred. Their highest priority is parental/family life.
Those women who have high commitment and salience to both career and parental roles are
termed adaptive. They value both career and family equally in their decision making (Hakim
2007). Based on this, our research examined the variables of career commitment and salience,and parental role commitment and salience.
Hypothesis 9a: Parental role commitment will be negatively related to career planning.
Hypothesis 9b: Parental role commitment will be positively related to planning to havea family.
Hypothesis 10a: Parental role salience will be negatively related to career planning.
Hypothesis 10b: Parental role salience will be positively related to planning to havea family.

MethodParticipants, demographics, and procedure
One hundred and seventy-eight New Zealand females, over the age of 18 and without children,were surveyed. It must be pointed out that women with children were not examined in thisstudy. The justification for this was to avoid retrospective bias; this study examined the current
attitudes that women with no children had regarding the ability and expectation to manage acareer and having a family. Whereas women who already manage to have a career and a family,or have chosen one over the other, already have an idea of what is involved in managing both.
The distributions of ages in our sample were 90.4 percent were aged between 18-35 years old,and 9.6 percent was aged 36 and older. The mean age was 25.32 years (SD=7.82), averageannual income was between $0-50,000 (M=1.26. SD=0.49), and the level of education
distribution across participants was secondary school (14 percent), tertiary (32.6 percent),
Bachelor’s degree (24.7 percent), Honours’ degree (7.3 percent), Master’s degree (13.5
percent), and Doctorate degree (7.9 percent). A range of participants were recruited, including
university students, local consultancy agencies, alumni and educational group associations,
university residential halls, research company, local advocacy association, and financial
support organisation. Participants completed an online survey that asked them to rate theiragreement with a series of statements on a seven-point scale, from strongly disagree (1), tostrongly agree (7).

30New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 24-43
Measures
Career planning
Gould’s (1979) 6-item Career Planning Questionnaire (CPQ) was used to assess the extent
participants engaged in career planning. (e.g. “I know what I need to do to reach my careergoals.”, “I have a plan for my career.”, α= 0.86).
Proactive personality
Cleaes, Beheydt, and Lemmens’ (2005) 6-item Proactive Personality Scale (PPS) was used toassess the broad construct of proactive personality. (e.g. “If I see something I don’t like, I fix
it.”, “I am always looking for better ways to do things.”, α= 0.79).
Subjective Career Success (Career Satisfaction)
Greenhaus, Parasuraman, and Wormley’s (1990) 5-item Career Satisfaction Scale (CSS) wasused to assess subjective career success (career satisfaction). (e.g. “I am satisfied with thesuccess I have achieved in my career.”, “I am satisfied with progress I have made towardmeeting my overall career goal”, α= 0.87).
Family Planning – Considering Children
Ganginis Del Pino et al.’s (2013) 12-item PLAN: Considering Children Scale was used tomeasure the extent women considered children in their career plans. (e.g. “I will have a careerwith flexible hours so that I can be home for the children I plan to have.”, “I will not plan mycareer around future parenting responsibilities.”, α= 0.96).
Career Commitment
Ellemers, De Gilder, and Van Den Heuvel’s (1998) 5-item career-oriented commitment scale
was used to measure the extent that an individual feels committed to their personal goals toadvance their career. (e.g. “My career is one of the most important things in my life.”, “Theambitions in my life mainly have to do with my career.”, α= 0.85).
Parental Role Commitment
Amatea et al.’s (1986) 5-item Parental Role Commitment subscale of the Life Role Salience
Scale was used to measure the extent that a person is willing to commit personal resources toassure success in the parental role or to develop the role. (e.g. “I expect to devote a significant
amount of my time and energy to the rearing of children of my own.”, “I expect to be very
involved in the day-to-day matters of rearing children of my own.”, α= 0.86).
Career Salience
Allen and Ortlepp’s (2002) 11-item Career Salience Questionnaire (CSQ) was used to measure
the relative importance and significance an individual’s career maintained within theindividual’s life. (e.g. “The most important things I do involve my career., “I am willing to
make sacrifices in my family life to succeed in my career.”). In our exploratory analysis, careersalience was found to consist of three constructs; these three constructs were called ‘Importanceof career in life’ dimension (CS:CIL, α= 0.83), ‘Importance of career over family’ dimension(CS:COF, α= 0.79), and ‘Importance of work over career’ dimension (CS:WOC, α= 0.70).
Therefore, our statistical analysis examined career salience using these three dimensions.
Parental Role Salience
Amatea et al.’s (1986) 5-item Parental Role Value subscale of the Life Role Salience Scale wasused to measure the participant’s view that the role as a parent is important and a means of selfdefinition and/or personal satisfaction. (i.e. “The whole idea of having children and raising31New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 24-43
them is not attractive to me.”, “It is important to me to feel I am (will be) an effective parent.”,
α= 0.92).
Demographics
The demographics included in this study were age, education and income level.
Data analysis
Reliability Analysis
Data analysis was conducted using SPSS21. Cronbach’s alphas were used to assess reliabilityof the measures used and are reported in the measures section. All measures met the required
values (Kline, 2011).
Correlational Analysis
A Pearson’s product-moment correlation was used to test for support for this study’s
hypotheses.

Results
Examining Table 1, the hypothesised relationships between engagement in career planning andage (H1); education (H2); planning to have a family by considering children in career plans(H7); parental role commitment (H9a); parental role salience (H10a) were not supported. The
hypothesised relationships between engagement in career planning and proactive personality(H3; r= .34, p<0.001); SCS (H4a; r= .47, p<0.001); career commitment (H5a; r= .37, p<0.001),
were supported. This implies that women who engaged in career planning (as hypothesised)were more likely to have a proactive personality, experience SCS, and be career committed.
The hypotheses relationships between proactive personality and SCS (H4b; r= .27, p<0.001)
and career commitment (H5b; r= .37, p<0.001) were supported. This implies that women witha proactive personality (as hypothesised) were more likely to experience SCS and were more
likely to be committed to their career.
The hypothesised relationship between career planning and career salience (H6), wasmoderately supported, as the career salience variable was made up of three dimensions, therelationships between engagement in career planning and importance of career in life (r= 0.41,
p<0.001) and importance of work over career (r= .37, p<0.001), were supported, but therelationship with importance of career over family was not supported. This implies that women
who consider their career important in their life and in work (as hypothesised) are more likely
to engage career planning.
The hypothesised relationship between planning to have a family by considering children in
career plans and education (H8, r=-0.20, p<0.01) was supported. This implies that as awoman’s education level increases (as hypothesised) the less likely she will engage inconsidering plans to have children in their career plans.
The hypothesised relationships between planning to have a family by considering children in
career plans and parental role commitment (H9b; r= .74, p<0.001); parental role salience(H10b; r= .73, p<0.001) were supported. This implies that women who plan to have a family
by considering children in career plans tend to be (as hypothesised) more committed to theparental roles and regard the parental role as salient in their lives.
32

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 24-43

33

Discussion
Research into career management is important as it can help provide information forpractitioners to assist clients on what career path to consider and select, as well as what type of
educational, training, and development opportunities to take. This will help practitioners
address clients’ concerns in other life roles, find ways to facilitate life roles within their career,and encourage individuals to pursue their desired career without feeling as though their careeror family options are limited (Lent & Brown, 2013).
Our research primarily examined the relationships between two important life domains for
women, their career life and their family life. Women’s engagement in career planning was
examined in relation to their plans for considering children in their career plans, theircommitment and value (salience) of their career and family, personality, and SCS (career
satisfaction). The results supported many of our hypotheses, that engagement in careerplanning was positively related to proactive personality (H3), SCS (H4a), career commitment(H5a), and career salience (H6). These results indicated that women who scored highly on
proactive personality, reported high levels of SCS, were highly committed to their career, andhad a high level of career salience. They were more likely to engage in career planning than
women who reported low levels of proactivity, SCS, career commitment and salience. Familyplanning was related to parental role commitment and salience, as well as being negatively
related to education. This means that the more educated a women is, the less she will engage
in planning to have a family. Whereas for women with a high level of parental role commitment
and salience, the more likely she is to engage in planning to have a family.
However, a number of hypotheses were not supported, career planning and (H1) age, (H2)
education, (H7) planning to have a family, (H9a) parental role commitment, (H10a) parentalrole salience, and (H6) career salience: Importance of career over family. The unsupported
hypotheses 1 and 2 indicate that, regardless of age and education, engaging in career planning
is more likely related to career transitions, in that career planning spans across an individual’slife, rather than a specific age range (Gould, 1979). The concept of mini and maxi career cycles
could account for this, where individuals return to previous career development stages due tochanges, such as promotions, career changes or retirement, rather than going through careerdevelopmental stages only once in their lifetime (Hartung, 2013).
Although career planning was not found to be correlated with planning to have a family (H7),parental role commitment (H9a), parental role salience (H10a), and career salience: Importanceof career over family (H6), they are coherent findings. One possible explanation for theseresults may be due to sampling, and the inclusion of young undergraduate childless females.
Thus, these participants, in their current stage of life, may not have been concerned withaccommodating children in their career, but may be more concerned with whether they want a
career, what type of career, and attaining higher qualifications. Additionally, Crozier (1999)
suggested that young women create pseudo-career plans without making any concretecommitments or plans so that they can make accommodations for family responsibilities,
suggesting that the concept of having a family may be a vague inclination without in-depth
consideration of managing a family and a career until a time requires them to do so. These
points may have influenced the results. Future research could examine career and familyplanning among women with and without children, and those who are working and those whoare not.
The results suggest an individual’s parental role commitment (H9a) and salience (H10a) will
not influence the extent the person undertakes career planning. Again, these results may be
specific to our sample, in that our sample was not yet in the stage of life concerned about the34

immediate impact of children on career decisions, i.e. having no children, therefore, little or noconcern about issues as they are not impending or immediate. Future research could replicate
this study but it could also include women with children who are also working, in addition to
women without children. Notwithstanding, the current findings are consistent with Hakim’s(2007) research in that both career commitment and salience were significantly related to careerplanning, and both parental role commitment and salience were significantly related toplanning to have a family, possibly indicating women’s preferences (commitment and salience)
are what may influence the level of engagement in career planning and planning to have afamily.
Implications
The choice between career and family remains salient for New Zealand women. This researchhighlighted the importance of examining women’s career management in relation to their
possible future role as a parent, understanding contributing factors for career and familyplanning, as well as women’s family planning intentions. Certain lifestyle preferences may
indicate women who may have an increased likelihood of altering their career choices andresponsibilities, due to the concern of managing career and childcare responsibilities.
Counsellors could work with female clients to develop a career plan, and a contingency plan
for when they become a mother so that they can have a career and be a mother. By doing this,counsellors would be supporting the development and application of female clients’ careerplans, encouraging clients to take up career advancing opportunities, and reducing theirconcerns over possible conflict between childcare and career responsibilities if this is right forthem. Career management programmes could be designed to help encourage women to beproactive with their career plans and goals, maintaining their knowledge, skills, and abilities,
and to help design a career that would reduce career and family life conflict. These programs
could discuss women’s concerns about how their career and work could change due to having
children, and to discuss effective ways to balance their career and childcare responsibilities.
The purpose would be to reduce women’s tendencies to limit their future career prospects toaccommodate parenting responsibilities on top of their career responsibilities provided this isright for them.
This research shows that New Zealand women feel they need to choose between a career anda family. Organisations could play a part in employees’ career planning by addressing this issueof hesitance to take up career opportunities. By assisting in the development of career plans
and contingency plans for when children arrive, encouraging female employees to apply forcareer advancing opportunities, should they want this, may lead to lower early female employee
turnover.
Reducing early female employee turnover may save the organisation extra resources andmoney required when replacing female employees that have exited, and possibly increasing
employees’ work-life balance and organisational commitment. Furthermore, addressing female
employees’ concerns about their career and motherhood may encourage more female
employees to apply for or accept career-advancing opportunities. This may benefit theorganisation and may lead to an increase career satisfied female employees, however, this could
lead to increases in stress and mother-guilt. To manage this, organisations may also want todevelop and adopt flexible work policies for employees who have family responsibilities, toallow for work-life balance to help decrease or manage stress for working mothers and motherguilt, and increase career satisfaction. The benefit of this is that organisations would have abetter range of applicants to select from for promotion, increasing the likelihood of hiring thebest person for the role. Furthermore, investing time in employees’ careers may increase
employees’ career commitment and salience, and commitment levels to their organisations.
35Limitations and Further Research Required
One of the limitations of our study is that it is based on USA and UK attitudes and models
around family and careers, and the sample of participants is predominantly middle class.
However, we argue that the relevancy of research from the USA and UK to a New Zealandsample is appropriate. Previous research by Masuda, Poelmans, Allen, Spector, Lapierre,
Cooper, Moreno-Velazquez (2012) examined the cultures of various countries and assigned
them into cultural clusters. New Zealand was categorised into the Anglo cluster, which
included Australia, Canada, USA, and the UK. The clusters were based on common history,geography, and shared cultural values, and ratings of the level of individualism andcollectivism existing within the countries from multiple data collections. Spector, Allen,
Poelmans, Lapierre, Cooper, O’Driscoll, Widerszal-Bazyl’s (2007) found that the Anglocluster (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, USA and UK) was the highest individualistic ratingcompared to other cultural clusters (Asian and Latin clusters). Although this justifies the useof research from USA and UK in this study, it does limit the generalisability of the results giventhat the results from other countries and cultures may vary.
Another limitation of our study is that it does not specifically examine the Maori (i.e.
indigenous) cultural models. Harr and Brougham (2013) point out that the Maori culture has
more of a collectivist orientation while existing within an individualistic society. Our study
also excludes other cultural models to the issue of family versus career planning, for example,
the Scandinavian approach that adopts a family and father friendly approach and uses public
policies to assist with family responsibilities. For example, Sweden and Norway, both havepublic policies and social supports demonstrating a commitment to gender equality based on
women and men sharing paid employment and family responsibilities equally (Knudsen, 2009;
Oláh, & Bernhardt, 2008). Parental leave policies, to which fathers can access, to help increase
the father’s active involvement in parenting. The social supports also include publically funded
high-quality childcare to enable men and women to combine employment and parenthood; tax
and cash benefits for families; no wage penalties for part-time employment; and part-time andflexible working hours are almost accessible everywhere in these countries (Knudsen, 2009;
Oláh, & Bernhardt, 2008). Thus, a cross-sectional study of different cultures and societies, aswell as a longitudinal study examining the changes across women’s career and life stages,
would benefit this field of research. These would help identify other factors that may contributeto the development of certain attitudes around having children and a career.
An additional drawback of this study is the limited ability to measure the priority or real valueof having children and a career, especially among participants who do not have children and/or
a career, and have not experienced the struggle with managing the responsibilities of both. As
the level of value or realisation of how valuable both are, and in comparison to each other, aresubject to change once women and men actually have children, as well as the value of one’s
career over various periods in a person’s life span. Ganginis Del Pino et al. (2013) also suggeststhat planning for a career and a family is expected to vary across time and across developmental
stages. Future research could examine whether women feel the need to change their careerplans to accommodate a family and whether women will or will not accept career advancing
opportunities in anticipation of future child rearing responsibilities. This proposed research
could explore the concept of “leaning out of careers” and whether a trade-off between careerand family is a reason for their decision. Future research could also investigate what specificconcerns (for example family and/or career responsibilities, promotion, salary, travel, andsocial activities) women are faced with related to postponing childbearing, and how would theyrank these concerns in terms of importance in life, and examine how these concerns andrankings vary and change across different ages, possibly in a longitudinal study. Furthermore,36

research on the reasons why New Zealand women postpone having children may provide
insights around the important aspects influencing women’s decisions around having children.
Moreover, career salience and parental role salience may not be considered as stable constructs,
rather dynamic ones that may transform due to changes within the individual as well as theircircumstances. The measure used for career salience was the 11-item CSQ from Allen andOrtlepp (2002), which is a valid measure to assess career salience, as previous measures did
not differentiate between career salience, work salience, and career commitment. This measure
was developed, therefore, in order to have a more accurate assessment of career salience, andis highly correlated with the original Career Salience Scale by Greenhaus (1971) (Allen &Ortlepp, 2002). For parental role salience, we used the Parental Role Value Subscale from theLife-Role Saliences scale by Amatea, et al. (1986). This measure has been used in multiple
studies (Bosch, de Bruin, Kgaladi, & de Bruin, 2012; Cinamon, 2010; Friedman & Weissbrod
2005; Vinkenburg et al., 2013). While acknowledging that attitudes/salience’s change over a
lifetime, the measures used represent a fair assessment of current attitudes of predominantly
young New Zealand women, are validated measures and used in multiple studies.

Conclusion
This study examined the relationship between women’s career plans and consideration ofchildren in their plans, as well as providing insight into young childless New Zealand women’s
attitudes regarding children and careers. Regardless of the unsupported hypotheses, themajority of our hypotheses were supported. The findings support the notion that women feelthe need to choose between a career and a family. Our research found that women with highparental role commitment and salience were more likely to change their career plans toaccommodate having children. Whereas, women with high career commitment and salience
were less likely to change their career plans to accommodate children. Interestingly,
considering children in career plans and parental role commitment and salience were not related
to engagement in career planning. Therefore, women’s career plans, commitment and salienceof their career, in addition, family planning, parental role commitment and salience,
personality, and SCS all were central in developing career plans for young women in New
Zealand. This research could assist career counsellors with female clients by prompting themto consider other aspects of the client’s life and life plan as well as how the client can manage
life events and aspects into their career plan without having to leave one’s career entirely.

References
Allen, S., & Ortlepp, K. (2002). Conceptualising and operationalising work versus careersalience. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 28(2), 7-14.
Amatea, E.S., Cross, E.G., Clark, J.E., & Bobby, C.L. (1986). Assessing the work and familyrole expectations of career-oriented men and women: The life role salience scales. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 48(4), 831-838.
Aryee, S., & Debrah, Y.A. (1993). A cross-cultural application of a career planning model.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 119-127. doi:10.1002/job.4030140203

37

Bachiochi, P.D. (2013). Effects of work and leisure-role salience on career development. In J.
Demick & P.M. Miller (Eds.), Development in the Workplace (pp. 129-138). Retrieved fromhttp://site.ebrary.com/lib/waikato/docDetail.action?docID=10713894
Bateman, T.S., & Crant, J.M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A
measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 103-118.
doi:10.1002/job.4030140202
Blau, G. (1989). Testing the generalizability of a career commitment measure and its impact
on employee turnover. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 35(1), 88-103.
Bosch, A., de Bruin, G. P., Kgaladi, B., & de Bruin, K. (2012). Life role salience among black
African dual-career couples in the South African context. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 23(14), 2835-2853. doi:10.1080/09585192.2012.671506
Brown, E.R., & Diekman, A.B. (2010). What will I be? Exploring gender differences in nearand distant possible selves. Sex Roles, 63, 568-579.
Brown, S.D., & Lent, R.W. (Eds.). (2013). Career developement and counseling: Putting
theory and research to work (2nd ed.). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Carson, K.D., & Bedeian, A.G. (1994). Career commitment: Construction of a measure andexamination of its psychometric properties. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44(3), 237-262.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1994.1017
Chao, G., & Malik, S. (1988). A career planning model for women. In S. Rose & L. Larwood(Eds.), Women’s careers: Pathways and pitfalls. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Cinamon, R. G. (2010). Anticipated work-family conflict: Effects of role salience and selfefficacy. British Journal Of Guidance & Counselling, 38(1), 83-99.
Cleaes, R., Beheydt, C., & Lemmens, B. (2005). Unidimensionality of abbreviated proactive
personality scales across cultures. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54(4), 476489.
Cleveland, J., Stockdale, M., & Murphy, K. (2000). Women and men in organizations: Sex andgender issues at work. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Colarelli, S.M., & Bishop, R.C. (1990). Career commitment: Functions, correlates, andmanagment. Group and Organization Studies, 15(2), 158-176.
Covin, T.J., & Brush, C.C. (1991). An examination of male and female attitudes
toward career and family issues. Sex Roles, 25(7/8), 393-415.
Crant, J.M. (1995). The proactive personality scale and objective job performance among realestate agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(4), 532-537.
Crozier, S.D. (1999). Women’s career development in a “relational context”. International
Journal for the Advencement of Counselling, 21, 231-247.
Driver, S.C. (2004). Career management practices in New Zealand organisations: An
examination of the relationships with career commitment, job satisfaction, affective
38

commitment and continuance commitment (Unpublished Masters Thesis). University ofWaikato, New ZealandEllemers, N., De Gilder, D., & Van Den Heuvel, H. (1998). Career-oriented versus teamoriented commitment and behaviour at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(5), 717-730.
Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. (2005). Enhancing career benefits of employee proactive personality:
The role of fit with jobs and organizations. Personnel Psychology, 58, 859-891.
Ezzedeen, S.R., & Ritchey, K.G. (2009). Career advancement and family balance strategies ofexecutive women. Gender in Management, 24(6), 388-411. doi:10.1108/17542410910980388
Farmer, H.S. (1997). Women’s motivation related to mastery, career salience, and career
aspiration: A miltivariate model focusing on the effects of sex role socialization. Journal of
Career Assessment, 5(2), 355-381.
Fetterolf, J.C., & Eagly, A.H. (2011). Do young women expect gender equality in their future
lives? An answer from a possible selves experiment. Sex Roles, 65, 83-93.
Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K., & Tag, A. (1997). The concept of personal
inititative: Operationalization, reliability and validity of two German samples. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 139-161.
Friedman, S.R., & Weissbrod, C.S. (2005). Work and family commitment and decision-making
status among emerging adults. Sex Roles, 53(5/6), 317-325.
Ganginis Del Pino, H.V., O’Brien, K.M., Mereish, E., & Miller, M.J. (2013). “Leaving before
she leaves”: Considering future family when making career plans. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 60(3), 462-470.
Gould, S. (1979). Characteristics of career planners in upwardly mobile occupations. The
Academy of Management Journal, 22(3), 539-550. doi:10.2307/255743
Greenhaus, J.H. (1971). An investigation of the role of career salience in vocational behavior.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1, 209-216.
Greenhaus, J.H. (1973). A factorial investigation of career salience. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 3, 95-98.
Greenhaus, J.H., Parasuraman, S., & Wormley, W.M. (1990). Effects of race on organizational
experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes. The Academy of Management
Journal, 33(1), 64-86. doi:10.2307/256352
Greenhaus, J.H., & Simon, W.E. (1977). Career salience, work values, and vocational
indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 10, 104-110.
Gufstasson, S. (2001). Optimal age at motherhood. Theoretical and empirical considerations
on postponement of maternity in Europe. Journal of Population Economics, 14(2), 225-247.
Haar, J.M., & Brougham, D.M. (2013). An indigenous model of career satisfaction: Exploring
the role of workplace cultural wellbeing. Social Indicators Research, 10(3), 873-890.

39

Hakim, C. (2007). Women, careers, and work-life preferences. British Journal of Guidance
and Counselling, 34(3), 279-294.
Happel, S. K., Hill, J. K., & Low, S. A. (1984). An economic analysis of the timing ofchildbirth. Population Studies, 38(2), 299-311. doi:10.2307/2174078
Hartung, P. (2013). The life-span, life-space theory of careers. In S.D Brown & R.W Lent
(Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (2nd ed.,pp. 187-214). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc
Hewlett, S.A., Buck-Luce, C., Shiller, P., & Southwell, S. (2005). The hidden brain drain: Offramps and on-ramps in women’s careers. Watertown, Massachusetts: Center for work-life
policy.
Kerpelman, J.K., & Schvaneveldt, P.L. (1999). Young adults’ anticipated identity importanceof career, marital, and parental roles: Comparison of men and women with different rolebalance orientations. Sex Roles, 41(3/4), 189-217.
King, Z. (2004). Career self-management: Its nature, causes and consequences. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 65(1), 112-133.
Kline, R. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. (3rd ed.). New York:
Guliford Press.
Knudsen, K. (2009). Striking a different balance. Gender in Management, 24(4), 252-269.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17542410910961541
Kossek, E.E., Roberts, K., Fisher, S., & Demarr, B. (1998). Career self-management: A quasiexperimental assessment of the effects of a training intervention. Personnel Psychology, 51(4),935-962.
Larwood, L., & Gutek, B. (1987). Working towards a theory of women’s career development.
In B. Gutek & L. Larwood (Eds.), Women’s career development (pp. 170-183). Newbury Park,
California: Sage publications.
Lent, R.W., & Brown, S.D. (2013). Understanding and facilitating career development in the
21st century. In S.D. Brown & R.W. Lent (Eds.), Career developement and counseling: Putting
theory and research to work (2nd ed.). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
London, M., & Noe, R.A. (1997). London’s career motivation theory: An update on
measurement and research. Journal of Career Assessment, 5(1), 61-80.
Marks, G., & Houston, D.M. (2002). The determinants of young women’s intentions about
education, career development and family life. Journal of Education and Work, 15(3), 321-336.
Masuda, A.D., Poelmans, S.A.Y., Allen, T.D., Spector, P.E., Lapierre, L.M., Cooper, C.L.,
Abarca, N., Brough, P., Ferreiro, P., Fraile, G., Lu, L., Lu, C.-Q., Siu, O.L., O’Driscoll, M.,
Simoni, A. S., Shima, S., & Moreno-Velazquez, I. (2012). Flexible work arrangements
availability and their relationship with work-to-family conflict, job satisfaction, and turnover
intentions: A comparison of three country clusters. Applied Psychology, 61(1), 1-29.
10.1111/j.1464-0597.2011.00453.x

40Miree, C., & Frieze, I. (1999). Children and careers: A longitudinal study of the impact ofyoung children on critical career outcomes of MBAs. Sex Roles, 41(11/12), 787-808.
Morgan, W.B., Walker, S.S., Wang, Y., & Aven, F.F.J. (2012). Proactive and committed:
Characteristics for retention. Journal of Organizational Psychology, 12(2), 97-108.
Nevill, D.D., & Super, D.E. (1988). Career maturity and commitment to work in university
students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 139-151.
Ng, T.W.H., Eby, L.T., Sorensen, K.L., & Feldman, D.C. (2005). Predictors of objective andsubjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 367-408.
Novakovic, A., & Fouad, N.A. (2013). Background, personal, and environmental influences
on career planning of adolescent girls. Journal of Career Developement, 40(3), 223-244.
Nowak, M., Naudé, M., & Thomas, G. (2012). Sustaining career through maternity leave.
Australian Journal of Labour Economics, 15(3), 201-216.
O’Brein, K.M., Friedman, S.M., Tipton, L.C., & Linn, S.G. (2000). Attachment, separation,
and women’s vocational development: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 47(3), 301-315.
Oláh, L.S., & Bernhardt, E.M. (2008). Sweden: Combining childbearing and genderequality. Demographic
Research, 19,1105-1143.
Retrievedfrom
http://ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/200962889?accountid=17287
Pazy, A. (1988). Joint responsibility: The relationship between organizational and individualcareer management and the effectiveness of careers. Group and Organization Management,
13(3), 311-331.
Peters, S.E. (1991). Career/home conflict, career indecision, and Holland type: An exploration.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ohio State University, Columbus, United States ofAmerica.
Sandberg, S., & Scovell, N. (2013). Lean in: Women, work, and the will to lead. New York:
Random House, Inc.
Seibert, S.E., Crant, J.M., & Kraimer, M.L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 416-427. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.3.416
Seibert, S.E., Kraimer, M.L., & Crant, J.M. (2001). What to proactive people do? A
longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology,
54(4), 845-874.
Seibert, S.E., Kraimer, M.L., Holtom, B.C., & Pierotti, A.J. (2013). Even the best laid plans
sometimes go askew: Career self-management processes, career shocks, and the decision to
pursure graduate education. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(1), 169-182.
Shann, M.H. (1983). Career plans of men and women in gender-dominant professions. Journalof Vocational Behavior, 22, 343-356.

41

Spector, P.E., Allen, T.D., Poelmans, S., Lapierre, L.M., Cooper, C.L., O’Driscoll,
M., Sanchez, J.I., Abarca, N., Alexandrova, M.,Beham, B., Brough, P., Ferreiro, P., Fraile,
G., Lu, C., Lu, L., Moreno-Velázquez, I., Pagon, M., Pitariu, H., Salamatov, V., Shima,
S.,Suarez Simoni, A., Siu, O.L., & Widerszal-Bazyl, M. (2007). Cross-national differences inrelationships of work demands, job satisfaction and turnover intentions with work–family
conflict. Personnel Psychology, 60(4), 805–835.
Statistics New Zealand. (2009). Median and Average Age of First Time Mothers, Nuptial and
total
live
confinements,
1962–2009.
Retrievedfrom
http://www.stats.govt.nz/searchresults.aspx?q=First%20time%20mothers%20age
Vandenberghe, C., & Ok, A.B. (2013). Career commitment, proactive personality, and work
outcomes: A cross-lagged study. Career Development International, 18(7), 652-672.
Vinkenburg, C.J., Van Hattem, A.Y., Ossenkop, C., & Dikkers, J.S.E. (2013). Life role salienceand values. Cross Cultural Management, 20(4), 607-624.
White, B., Cox, C., & Cooper, C. (1992). Women’s career development: A study of high flyers.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Whitmarsh, L., Brown, D., Cooper, J., Hawkins-Rodgers, Y., & Diane, K.W. (2007).
Choices and challenges: A qualitative exploration of professional women’s career patterns. The
Career Development Quarterly, 55(3), 225-236.

42

Appendix 1
Median and Average Age of First Time Mothers:
Nuptial and total live confinements from 1962 to 2009
35.0

30.0

y = 0.1923x + 22.1
R² = 0.9603

25.0

Age

20.0

Median Age of Nuptials (years)
15.0

Average Age of Nuptials (years)
Median Age Total (years)

10.0

Linear Trendline (Average Age of Nuptials)
5.0

0.0

2008

2006

2004

2002

2000

1998

1996

1994

1992

1990

1988

1986

1984

1982

1980

1978

1976

1974

1972

1970

1968

1966

1964

1962

Year

Figure 1. New Zealand 1962-2009 statistics of average and median ages of firsttime mothers.

43New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 44-66

A Theoretical Model Relating the Dark Triad of Personality to the Content
of Employees’ Psychological Contracts
LAURENT BOEY* and TIM VANTILBORGH**
Keywords: dark triad, psychopathy, narcissism, Machiavellism, psychological contract

Abstract
Psychological contracts – an individual’s perception of mutual obligations between him/herself and anorganisation – form a powerful lens to understanding employment relationship. While the consequencesof the psychological contract are well-documented, its antecedents are not fully understood. Researchsuggests that personality traits, operationalised using the Big Five taxonomy, can explain the type of
psychological contract that employees develop. We extend this research by developing a theoreticalmodel that relates three maladaptive traits – the dark triad of personality: Machiavellism, narcissism, andpsychopathy – to the content of employees’ psychological contracts. We propose that employees withhigh scores on these traits tend to develop transactional as opposed to relational psychological contracts.
Moreover, we introduce five mediators to explain these relationships: the norm of reciprocity, careerism,
perceived organisational support, trust, and interpersonal conflict. Finally, we offer an explanation forearlier suggestions of curvilinear effects of the dark triad traits. We reason that psychopathy and narcissism
negatively relate to self-control which, in turn, moderates the relationships between the dark triad traits
and the six mediators in our model.

Introduction
Every so often, popular media ascribe fraudulent and deviant behaviour of employers and employees todark personality traits. For example, when the ENRON Corporation went bankrupt in 2001, media soon
focussed on the CEO, Kenneth Lay, who appeared to have deceived and manipulated people for years onend (Suddath, 2010). He was depicted as the archetype of the “corporate psychopath” because he enrichedhimself while driving his organisation and its employees into the ground. However, attention for dark
personality traits in the workplace is not limited to popular media as scholarly attention for this topic ison the rise (Furnham, Richards, & Paulhus, 2013). In 2002, Paulhus and Williams introduced the dark
triad of personality, a constellation of three related yet distinct traits: Machiavellianism, narcissism, andpsychopathy. More than a decade later, the dark triad has been empirically related to mostly negative
outcomes, such as counterproductive work behaviour (O’Boyle, Forsyth, Banks & McDaniel, 2012) andmanipulative and ‘hard’ influence tactics (Jonason, Slomski & Partyka, 2012). Notwithstanding these* Vrije Universiteit Brussel – Work and Organizational Psychology

Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Elsene** Vrije Universiteit Brussel – Work and Organizational Psychology
Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Elsene
E-mail corresponding author: tim.vantilborgh@vub.ac.be44New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 44-66
advancements in the literature, it remains unclear how employees characterised by the dark triad are able
to function in employment relationships.
The goal of the present study is to theorise how the dark triad of personality relates to different types of
exchange relationships. We focus on the psychological contract, which can be described as an employee’s
perception of the mutual obligations between him/herself and the organisation (Rousseau, 1989), and wedistinguish transactional from relational psychological contract types. In a transactional psychologicalcontract, the economic aspect of the employment relationship occupies a central position, whereas arelational psychological contract revolves more around the socio-emotional aspects of the employment
relationship (Rousseau, 1990). Explaining how employees develop transactional and/or relational
contracts is important, as these psychological contract types relate differentially to outcomes (Jensen,
Opland & Ryan, 2009; Millward & Hopkins, 1998; Vantilborgh, Bidee, Pepermans, Willems, Huybrechts& Jegers, 2013).
Our theoretical model makes three major contributions to the literature. First, it extends present
understanding of how personality relates to the psychological contract. Studies have already explored how
bright personality traits, such as the Big Five traits, relate to psychological contract types (Raja, Johns &Ntalianis, 2004; Tallman & Bruning, 2008; Vantilborgh et al., 2013). We complement these studies by
proposing that the dark triad of personality traits will lead to the development of transactional
psychological contracts. Understanding how dark personality traits relate to psychological contract types
would improve our understanding on the development of psychological contracts. Second, our model
introduces a set of mediators that explain why the dark triad traits relate to psychological contract types.
In particular, we develop propositions on the mediating role of (1) the norm of reciprocity, (2) careerism,(3) perceived organisational support, (4) trust, and (5) interpersonal conflict. We, hence, advance present
knowledge on the reasons underlying relationships between personality and exchange relationship types,
and formulate a clear agenda for future research. Third, we introduce self-control as a moderator in ourmodel. It has been argued that low levels of the dark triad traits are not necessarily maladaptive, meaningthat the effects of these traits might be curvilinear (e.g., Smith & Lilienfeld, 2013). We reason that therelationships between the dark triad traits and the abovementioned mediators are buffered by high levelsof self-control, and that self-control, in turn, depends on the individual’s psychopathy and narcissism.
In the following sections, we briefly discuss the psychological contract and dark triad of personality
literatures. Next, we present our theoretical model and develop propositions relating the dark triad to
psychological contract types, followed by a one-by-one introduction of potential mediators and themoderating role of self-control. Finally, we discuss our model in view of the literature, examine
limitations, and offer suggestions for future research.

The psychological contract
The psychological contract is commonly defined as an individual’s beliefs regarding the terms andconditions of a reciprocal exchange agreement between that focal person and another party (Rousseau,
1989). Key issues here include the belief that a promise has been made and a consideration offered in
exchange for it, binding the parties to some set of reciprocal obligations (Rousseau, 1989: 123). Moreover,
Rousseau (1989) stipulated that the psychological contract entails perceived promises with a mandatory
nature, instead of more global ‘expectations’. She defined the psychological contract as being consciously
45

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 44-66
accessible, as opposed to the largely unconscious nature ascribed to it in earlier works (e.g. Argyris, 1960),
and pointed out that psychological contracts are idiosyncratic; the specific promises that form a
psychological contract can differ vastly from one person to another. This idiosyncratic nature of thepsychological contract is probably one of the decisive factors that led to the development of psychologicalcontract typologies.
We will focus on the traditional distinction between transactional and relational psychological contract
types (Macneil, 1985; Rousseau, 1990). Transactional psychological contracts typically have an economicand extrinsic focus, a close-ended timeframe, a static character, a narrow scope and a public, easily
observable tangibility. For example, employees with a transactional psychological contract may believethat their organisation is obliged to provide a fair wage in return for working the minimally agreed uponhours. Relational contracts are defined as having, besides an economic focus, a socio-emotional and more
intrinsic focus, an open-ended time frame, a dynamic character, a pervasive and comprehensive scope anda subjective tangibility (Rousseau, 1990). For example, employees with a relational psychological contract
may believe that their organisation is obliged to offer job security and promotion opportunities in returnfor loyalty and extra-role behaviour. Over the years, scholars introduced other psychological contract
types, such as the balanced (Rousseau, 1995) and the ideological or value-driven psychological contract(Vantilborgh, Bidee, Pepermans, Willems, Huybrechts & Jergers, 2014). Nonetheless, the transactionalrelational distinction remains the most frequently used typology in the literature (e.g., Raja et al., 2004;
Aggarwal & Bhargava, 2010), probably because it is so widely applicable and parsimonious.
The distinction between transactional and relational psychological contracts seems important because bothtypes differentially relate to a number of outcomes. Generally speaking, studies suggest that transactional
psychological contracts lead to maladaptive consequences whereas relational psychological contracts
result in positive consequences (Aggarwal & Barghava, 2010; Millward & Hopkins, 1998; Raja et al.,
2004; Richard, McMillan-Capehart, Bhuian & Taylor, 2009). Social exchange theory offers a theoreticalexplanation for these findings, stating that employees reciprocate in kind when they perceive that theiremployer promises them a certain type of obligations (Conway & Briner, 2009). Relatively few studies
explored the consequences of psychological contract types as the majority of the literature focussed on
psychological contract breach. This is perhaps unsurprising as breach represents an employee’s perceptionthat the employer has failed to provide a promised obligation, which may elicit a strong affective reaction(Morrison & Robinson, 1997). Nonetheless, research demonstrates that transactional psychologicalcontracts are positively associated with turnover intentions, and negatively relate to affective
organisational commitment, job satisfaction, psychological ownership, innovative work behaviour, yearly
earnings, and the amount of extra hours worked (Aggarwal & Barghava, 2010; Millward & Hopkins,
1998; Raja et al., 2004; Richard et al., 2009). In contrast, relational psychological contracts negatively
relate to turnover intentions, and positively relate to affective organisational commitment, job satisfaction,
psychological ownership, and the amount of extra hours worked per week (Aggarwal & Barghava, 2010;
Millward & Hopkins, 1998; Raja et al., 2004; Richard et al., 2009). In sum, relational contracts appear tobe preferable over transactional contracts.
Recent theorising suggests that psychological contract formation involves a progression through various
phases (Rousseau, Hansen & Tomprou, 2015). The psychological contract gradually takes shape once
that an employee enters the organisation, labeled the creation phase. After awhile, the psychologicalcontract crystalises and stabilises (maintenance phase). However, certain events, such as a psychologicalcontract breach, may lead to sudden changes in the content of the psychological contract, as employees
46

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 44-66
renegotiate or repair their contract. Several factors have been identified that potentially influence thecontent of the psychological contract throughout these various phases (Conway & Briner, 2009). Thesecan be grouped into factors outside the workplace (e.g., parenthood), organisational factors (e.g., HR
practices), social factors (e.g., comparisons with coworkers), and individual factors (e.g., personality). We
will focus on one particular individual factor, namely the dark triad of personality.

The dark triad of personality
The dark triad is a constellation of three empirically related yet theoretically distinct personality traits thatare seen as interpersonally malevolent, namely narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism (Paulhus& Williams, 2002). These three traits share a common core as evidenced by the high correlations foundbetween them (ibid). This empirical relatedness may seem obvious, given that the manipulation of othersfor personal gain is one of the central features of Machiavellianism; psychopathy entails, amongst others,
guiltlessness and a lack of empathy, and narcissism is characterised by a great sense of entitlement(O’Boyle et al., 2012; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Hence, it is clear that these traits share a certain
disregard towards the well-being of others. Studies have shown that there are common cores underlying
all three traits, such as high levels of disagreeableness (Jakobwitz & Egan, 2006; Paulhus & Williams,
2002) and callousness (Jones & Figueredo, 2013).
Despite these common cores and similarities, the three dark triad traits can still be considered uniqueconstructs. According to Jones and Paulhus (2010), the dark triad traits can be differentiated by theirinherent temporal orientations and identity needs. For example, Machiavellianism involves a more longterm orientation in comparison to psychopathy and narcissism, while narcissism comprises a greater
identity need compared to Machiavellianism and psychopathy. The three dark triad traits, thus, differ fromone another. Moreover, Jonason & Webster (2010) reported that a tridimensional confirmatory factor
model fits better to the data than a unidimensional model. Consequently, we are convinced that the dark
triad traits are perhaps strongly related, yet distinct constructs. We will, therefore, refrain from focussing
on a global dark triad construct in favour of the three separate underlying constructs. We believe that suchan approach is crucial as these traits still have a fair degree of unique characteristics, meaning that theymight lead to different outcomes through distinct processes and, additionally, a possibility that the threedifferent traits might counteract each other, which might be overlooked if merely focusing on a single,
global dark triad construct.

Machiavellianism
The construct of Machiavellianism was originally developed by Christie (1970), based on their studies
analysing how leaders of extreme political and religious groups used manipulation to further their own
personal desires. The characteristics of these leaders were then interpreted according to earlier politics
research and to historical perspectives, mostly of Niccolo Machiavelli, on power (Dahling, Whitaker &Levy, 2009). In “The Prince” (1944), for example, Machiavelli describes a great leader as one who canhold onto power by means of, amongst others, a gift for manipulation, an amoral disposition and a belief
that the end justifies every means. Machiavellian personality, as originally defined by Christie (1970),
comprises of three components: a cynical view concerning human nature, a belief in the effectiveness of47

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 44-66
the manipulation of others and a moral outlook that values expediency over principle. Other
conceptualisations have later on been proposed, such as a three-dimensional perspective differentiating
between manipulation, exploitation, and deviousness (Gable & Topol, 1988), and a four-dimensional
perspective distinguishing between amorality, distrust of others, desire for control, and desire for status(Dahlin et al., 2009). Returning characteristics in these conceptualisations are manipulation and areadiness to seek gains at the expense of others. For the purposes of our model, we will, therefore, define
Machiavellianism as “a strategy of social conduct that involves manipulating others for personal gain,
often against the other’s self-interest” (Wilson, Near & Miller, 1996: 285).
Machiavellianism has been linked to a number of organisational outcomes, such as lying and deceiving(DePaulo & Rosenthal, 1979), turnover intentions (Becker & O’Hair, 2007), knowledge sharing
willingness (Liu, 2008) and careerism (Kuyumucu & Dahling, 2013). However, despite being linked tomany organisational outcomes, the (behavioural) processes through which Machiavellianism leads tothese outcomes have mostly remained speculation.
Psychopathy
Cleckley (1941) can be considered the founding father of research on subclinical psychopathy in theworkplace. He suggested 16 characteristics of psychopaths, based on a case study of a prosperous andsuccessful, though psychopathic businessman. Some of these characteristics were not maladaptive, suchas intelligence, superficial charm and a lack of neurotic/psychotic symptoms. Consequently, subclinicalpsychopathy was not considered entirely maladaptive, and could – in certain cases – lead to positive
outcomes (Cleckley, 1941; Widom, 1977). In view of this, it is important to distinguish subclinical fromclinical psychopathy. While the latter is considered a maladaptive personality disorder, the former
represents a personality trait that can actually be beneficial at low to moderate levels (Levenson, Kiehl &Fitzpatrick, 1995). Various operationalisations of psychopathy have been proposed over the years, butthey commonly distinguish emotional and interpersonal aspects of psychopathy from antisocial andbehavioral aspects of psychopathy (e.g., Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996). For example, psychopaths are
typically characterised by a lack of empathy and guilt, and by an unstable, antisocial lifestyle (Smith &Lilienfeld, 2013). We follow recent descriptions of psychopathy by Cooke and Michie (2001) and define
psychopathy as a personality trait involving an arrogant and deceitful interpersonal style, a deficientaffective experience and an impulsive and irresponsible behavioural style.
The presence of psychopathic personalities in organisations has been associated with several detrimental
outcomes. Psychopathy has, for example, been linked to lower self-control (Jonason & Tost, 2010), lower
emotional intelligence (Petrides, Vernon, Schermer & Veselka, 2011), and increased counterproductive
work behaviour (Scherer, Baysinger, Zolynsky & LeBreton, 2013). Moreover, colleagues also seem to beaffected by the presence of an employee with high levels of psychopathy. For instance, the presence of
psychopaths in the workplace has been associated with higher levels of bullying and unfair supervision(Boddy, 2011). Additionally, the presence of psychopathic leaders in the workplace has been related todecreased perceptions of corporate social responsibility and lower commitment in coworkers (Boddy,
Ladyshewsky & Gavin, 2010). However, research also suggests that there may be some silver linings.
Psychopathy has also, for example, been related to more rational decision-making (Osumi & Ohira, 2010)
and to increased levels of entrepreneurship (Akhtar, Ahmetoglu & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2013). Although
psychopathy, thus, appears to have a few positive consequences, we can conclude that the majority of theconsequences in the workplace are negative.
48

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 44-66

Narcissism
Just as with psychopathy, a distinction must be made between narcissism as a non-clinical personality trait
and narcissism as a personality disorder, as defined in the Diagnostics and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). We again focus on non-clinical narcissism for the
purposes of our model. Subclinical narcissism can be defined as a personality trait stemming from an
unstable self-image and involving feelings and behaviors reflecting a sense of grandiosity, entitlement,
superiority and dominance (Raskin & Terry, 1988). Narcissists have a positive self-image that is not
grounded in reality but that is distorted by their desire for superiority (Penney & Spector, 2002).
Behaviours that have been associated with narcissism include a grandiose sense of self-importance,
exaggerating achievements, excessive self-admiration, and a lack of tolerance for criticism andcompromise (Resick, Whitman, Weingardenn Hiller, 2009).
Until quite recently, research in the organisational context had mainly focussed on the influence of
narcissism on leadership (e.g., Khoo & Burch, 2008). Narcissism nonetheless seems to relate to impulsive
and risky decision-making (e.g., Vazire & Funder, 2006), lower organisational citizenship behaviour (e.g.
Judge, LePine & Rich, 2006), increased counterproductive work behaviour (e.g. Penney & Spector, 2002;
Judge et al., 2006) and interpersonal exploitativeness (Campbell, Brunel & Finkel, 2006). The
relationships between narcissism and task performance are less clear. Narcissists can actually perform
well when the situation offers an opportunity to self-enhance (Wallace & Baumeister, 2002). However,narcissists perform worse than non-narcissists when they cannot garner admiration or respect of others ina situation. Generally speaking, narcissism – much like psychopathy and Machiavellianism – appears to
relate to several negative workplace outcomes.

49New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 44-66

Theoretical model
Figure 1. Overview of theoretical model on the relationships between the dark triad of personality andpsychological contract types.

We propose a theoretical model that relates the dark triad of personality to psychological contract types.
As can be seen in Figure 1, we propose that Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism explain thetype of psychological contract employees develop. In particular, we propose that the dark triad traits relate
positively to transactional psychological contracts and negatively to relational psychological contracts.
We further propose that these relationships can be explained by five mediators, namely the norm ofreciprocity, careerism, perceived organisational support, trust, and interpersonal conflict. Finally, we
reason that these relationships are moderated by self-control, and that psychopathy and narcissism
negatively relate to self-control. In the next sections, we develop arguments for these propositions.
Direct effects of the dark triad on psychological contract type
Our model assumes that personality traits have an impact on the content of employees’ psychologicalcontracts. According to Raja et al. (2004), personality influences psychological contract content throughchoice, construal and enactment. Choice refers to job-seeking behaviour and relates to the psychologicalcontract one searches and self-selects; someone ambitious, for example, will most likely search for a job
where the psychological contract includes promises related to swift career advancement. Construal refers
to how employees perceive and interpret their psychological contract; an ambitious employee may pay
50New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 44-66
particular attention to promises relating to career advancement, leading to an emphasis on careeradvancement in the content of his/her psychological contract. Finally, personality may affectpsychological contract content through enactment, meaning that content is shaped by an individual’s
behaviours and attitudes; an ambitious employee may work considerable extra hours and, as a result,he/she may be offered career advancement by the employer (Raja et al., 2004). These three processes –choice, construal, and enactment – explain why personality can lead to employees developing atransactional or relational psychological contract.
Results from prior studies that related the Big Five personality traits to psychological contract types
confirm that personality, indeed, influences psychological contract content (e.g. Raja et al., 2004, Tallman& Bruning, 2008; Vantilborgh et al., 2013). For example, Raja et al. (2004) found that neuroticism related
negatively, and conscientiousness related positively to relational psychological contracts while
extraversion related negatively to transactional psychological contracts in a paid employment context.
Likewise, Vantilborgh et al. (2013) demonstrated that conscientiousness related positively to transactional
psychological contracts while agreeableness related positively to relational psychological contracts in avolunteering context. Hence, it appears that the Big Five traits can be related to psychological contract
types in various types of exchange relationships. However, the Big Five taxonomy entails bright traits, so
it remains uncertain if similar relationships can be discerned for dark traits.
We propose that all three dark triad traits – Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism – will
positively relate to transactional psychological contracts and negatively relate to relational psychologicalcontracts. We base this proposition on the idea that these three traits share a common core characterisedby high levels of disagreeableness and an insensitive, even cruel disregard for others (Paulhus & Williams,
2002). As a result, people who score high on the dark triad traits will be more likely to choose a job witha transactional than with a relational psychological contract (i.e., choice), because they prefer the rational,
quid-pro-quo nature of transactional contracts over the trust-based, socio-emotional exchanges ofrelational contracts. Moreover, employees with high dark triad trait levels are more likely to construe their
psychological contract as transactional, because they focus on promises that are directly relevant tothemselves (as in transactional contracts) as opposed to promises that carry mutual benefits (as inrelational contracts). Finally, the insensitive behaviour and disregard for others may result in coworkers
refraining from making relational promises (i.e., enactment). However, Machiavellians are more likely todevelop a long-term exchange relationship than psychopaths and narcissists (O’Boyle et al., 2012). Given
that transactional contracts focus on the short-term, while relational contracts focus on the long-term(Rousseau, 1990), we propose that the relationships between Machiavellianism and psychological contract
types are weaker than those between psychopathy and narcissism and the psychological contract types.
Proposition 1: Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism are positively related to transactional
psychological contracts, and negatively related to relational psychological contracts. These relationships
are weaker for Machiavellianism, compared to psychopathy and narcissism.
Indirect effects of dark triad of personality on psychological contract types
Mediating role of the norm of reciprocity
The norm of reciprocity, as originally laid out by Gouldner (1960), states that when a benefit has been
accorded to or refused to another party, an obligation ensues for the other party to reciprocate in kind.
51

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 44-66
Gouldner distinguished between a positive and a negative reciprocity norm. The former refers to asituation where one offers help in reaction to receiving help from another party and the latter describes asituation where one takes revenge following negative treatment by another party. The norm of reciprocity
is considered a cornerstone of social exchange relationships (Blau, 1964), such as the psychologicalcontract, because it guides the formation and strengthening of interpersonal relationships (Gouldner,
1960).
Gouldner (1960) originally considered the norm of reciprocity to be universal and, therefore, believed that
individual differences would not influence the norm of reciprocity. However, this claim was later oncontested by other scholars. For example, Sahlins (1972) further defined the norm of reciprocity anddistinguished between generalised, balanced, and negative reciprocity. Generalised reciprocity is
characterised by“indefiniteness in the obligation, both in terms of equality and immediacy of returns, and it reflects
a kind of altruistic interest in others.”, balanced reciprocity by “immediacy of the return of acustomary and recognized equivalent and reflects mutuality in interests between exchange partners(Sparrowe & Liden, 1997: 525-526)
and negative reciprocity can be seen as a norm “in which giving is replaced by taking and complete selfinterest” (ibid). Importantly, Sahlins (1972) explained that people differed in their use of and preference
for these different norms of reciprocity. More recently, Perugini, Galluci, Presaghi, and Ercolani (2003)
described reciprocity as an internalised social norm that can be considered a personality trait. Evidence
that individual differences in the norm of reciprocity exist has also been found in experimental research(Gallucci & Perugini, 2000).
We propose that the dark triad of personality can explain why people differ in their preference for and useof a certain norm of reciprocity (Perugini et al., 2003; Sahlins, 1972). First, Meyer (1992) alreadydemonstrated a link between Machiavellianism and a negative norm of reciprocity and reasoned that thiswas due to Machiavellians exploiting and manipulating others for own personal gains. As a result,
Machiavellians perceive reciprocity as a means to further their own interests, and focus more on gaining
than giving in the exchange relationship. Second, we propose that narcissism will relate positively with
the negative norm of reciprocity, because narcissism implies a sense of entitlement and an obsession withthe self (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001; Raskin & Terry, 1979). As narcissists feel entitled and, consequently,
believe they deserve more than others, we expect that they will focus on exchanges in which they receive
more than they contribute. Likewise, psychopaths appear unconcerned with meeting social obligations(O’Boyle et al., 2012). Overall, they do not care about social exchange relationships, unless they canderive some personal benefit from them. Hence, psychopathy can be reasoned to positively relate to thenegative reciprocity norm.
Individual differences in the norm of reciprocity will subsequently influence the type of psychologicalcontract that is developed. As stated above, the relational psychological contract is defined by an economic
as well as a non-economic, socio-emotional focus, a pervasive scope and an open-ended time frame(Rousseau, 1990). We propose that a generalised reciprocity norm, or at least a balanced reciprocity norm,
would be required in order to develop and maintain a relational psychological contract. In contrast, anegative reciprocity norm will render a relational psychological contract impossible, steering towards atransactional psychological contract instead.
52

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 44-66

Proposition 2: Machiavellians, narcissists, and psychopaths are more likely to develop transactional
psychological contracts and less likely to develop relational psychological contracts, because they arecharacterised by a negative norm of reciprocity.
Mediating role of careerism
Careerism relates to a belief that for one to make progress career-wise, simply being competent issometimes not enough (Feldman, 1985). This position, in turn, leads towards trying to progress throughthe echelons of often multiple organisations by other means than just performing well and ‘delivering
good work’. Careerism is, thus, defined as the propensity to pursue career advancement through nonperformance-based means (Feldman & Weitz, 1991). Careerism entails a set of beliefs concerning careeradvancement that can be seen as interpersonally maladaptive and detrimental to the organisation. The
seven beliefs, as originally proposed by Feldman & Weitz (1991), encompass a number of recurring
themes, namely viewing competence alone as insufficient for advancement, the instrumental use ofinterpersonal relationships, a greater importance given to impression management and political behaviour,a belief in the irreconcilability of the goals of person and organisation, and a greater sensitivity toperceived inequity.
Machiavellianism has unequivocally been linked to a careerist orientation in past research (Bratton &Kacmar, 2004; Kuyumcu & Dahling, 2013). Moreover, it has been related to negative impression
management behaviours (Bratton & Kacmar, 2004). Machiavellists are likely to use manipulation ininterpersonal relationships and in organisational politics (Christie, 1970), resulting in a careeristorientation. Narcissism also shows considerable parallels with careerism, as both stress the instrumental
use of interpersonal relationships for personal gain, respectively, for maintaining a bolstered, thoughfragile self-image (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001) and for advancing one’s career (Feldman & Weitz, 1991).
Narcissism also entails a need for power (O’Boyle et al., 2012), which comes as no surprise as having
power over others implies a higher status and a greater perceived valuation of the self. Narcissists’ lack of
empathic capabilities (Watson, Grisham, Trotter & Biderman, 1984) and high focus on the self, leading toa disregard for the well-being of others, would facilitate the use of careerist strategies which sometimes
entail negative consequences for others. As narcissists’ self-regulation of their inflated self-image is, thus,
also pursued through the inconsiderate, yet vigorous striving for power and status, we assume that they
will use a careerist orientation to climb the corporate ladder more efficiently. As for psychopathy, a recent
study examined the link between ‘primary psychopathy’ and careerism (Chiaburu, Muñoz, & Gardner,2013). Primary psychopathy – i.e. the selfishness, uncaring and manipulative tendencies of thepsychopathic individual – was positively related with a careerist orientation (Chiaburu et al., 2013).
Moreover, psychopathy explained variance in careerism above and beyond the well-known Five Factor
Model personality traits. Psychopaths may be more likely to develop a careerist orientation because theirlack of empathy means that they are not hampered by feelings of guilt when manipulating others to achieve
their own career goals.
In sum, we propose that Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy are all positively related tocareerism. In turn, careerism has already been related to transactional and relational psychological contract
types (Rousseau, 1990). Rousseau found that careerism exhibited a negative relationship with theemployee’s perceived relational contract and a positive link with the employee’s perceived transactional
contract. Careerism implies the belief in the insufficiency of merely performing well in order to progress53

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 44-66
in one’s career, and leads to a greater desire for mobility (Feldman & Weitz, 1991). In combination withthe fact that it is also related to lower organisational commitment (Feldman & Weitz, 1991), this would
inevitably disturb the establishment and maintenance of a relational psychological contract with one’sorganisation for which a pervasive scope is needed and which has an indefinite time-frame (Rousseau,
1990). As the careerist is continuously looking for a new and better job (Feldman, 1985), we propose thatcareerism will be positively related to transactional psychological contracts because these contracts do not
require a long-term perspective or a high level of commitment.
Proposition 3: Machiavellists, narcissists, and psychopaths are more likely to develop transactional
psychological contract, and less likely to develop relational psychological contracts, because they arecharacterised by a careerist orientation.
Mediating role of perceived organisational support
Perceived organisational support is defined as employees’ “...global beliefs concerning the extent to which
the organisation values their contributions and cares about their well-being” (Eisenberger, Huntington,
Hutchison & Sowa, 1986: 500). Research on perceived organisational support often focussed on actionsof the organisation, without considering possible effects of dispositional variables (Rhoades &Eisenberger, 2002). We, nonetheless, propose that personality traits relate to individual differences inperceived organisational support. We argue that such relationships exist because perceived organisational
support is not an objective representation of the actual amount of support an organisation lends, but a
subjective and idiosyncratic perception by the individual employee. We, therefore, expect that narcissism
would interfere at the perceptual level as the feelings of entitlement and superiority that are typical for
narcissists will colour these perceptions (O’Boyle et al., 2012). Because narcissists are self-oriented (Morf& Rhodewalt, 2001) and feel entitled and superior, we reason that they will perceive less organisational
support as non-narcissists, believing that the support offered by the organisation falls short of the support
they themselves feel they deserve. Machiavellists may, at first, receive more organisational support
because they manipulate others (O’Boyle et al., 2012). However, their manipulation strategies may, in thelong term, jeopardise social relationships. Once coworkers discover their manipulative nature, they may
start to withdraw support to protect themselves (O’Boyle et al., 2012). Hence, we reason that
Machiavellianism will negatively relate to perceived organisational support. Likewise, psychopaths’
impulsive destructiveness and lack of emotions will hurt social relationships (O’Boyle et al., 2012),
meaning that the organisation is likely to withhold support.
In turn, several similarities can be discerned between perceived organisational support and thepsychological contract (Aselage & Eisenberger, 2003). They are both rooted in social exchange theory(Blau, 1964); they both state that the socio-emotional value of a resource depends on the implicit valuationof the employee; they both emphasise the importance of justice perceptions, and they both have been
related to important organisational outcomes (Aselage & Eisenberger, 2003). In light of these similarities,
we assume that perceived organisational support and psychological contract content will be related to eachother. This latter has been demonstrated by Aggarwal & Bhargava (2010), who found a positive relation
between perceived organisational support and relational psychological contracts and a negative
relationship between perceived organisational support and transactional psychological contracts. This is
in line with the idea that, as the organisation is perceived to value and care about the employee moredeeply, the employee will feel an increasing need to reciprocate in kind in accordance with the norm ofreciprocity (Aselage & Eisenberger, 2003). This would consequently lead to the development of a more
54

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 44-66
relational psychological contract with the organisation.
Proposition 4: Machiavellists, narcissists, and psychopaths are more likely to develop transactional
psychological contract, and less likely to develop relational psychological contracts, because they
perceive lower levels of organisational support.
The mediating role of trust
Trust refers to “a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive
expectations of intentions or behaviour of another” (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt & Camerer, 1998: 395). The
literature on trust often makes a distinction with respect to the underlying bases of trust, acknowledging
that trust is a rational as well as an emotional phenomenon (Lewis & Weigert, 1985; McAllister, 1995).
Lewis & Weigert (1985) proposed a typology differentiating four types of trust. They argued that trustalways consist of a ‘mix’ of rationale and emotion. Two types of trust in this typology, ‘emotional trust’(with a high emotionality and low rationality base) and ‘cognitive trust’ (with a low emotionality and highrationality base), were subsequently picked up in the psychology literature (McAllister, 1995). The
distinction was rebranded ‘affect-based trust’ and ‘cognition-based trust’ and validated in multiple studies(e.g., McAllister, 1995). We believe that the distinction between affect-based and cognition-based trust is
useful when relating the dark triad of personality to trust.
First, low levels of trust are an inherent part of the conceptualisation of Machiavellianism (Dahling,
Whitaker & Levy, 2009). Machiavellians tends to perceive that others may be trying to manipulate themas they themselves are trying to manipulate others (Christie, 1970). Likewise, Machiavellians show ahigher tendency towards economic opportunism when faced with the option to trust and cooperate withothers or to compete with others (Sakalaki, Richardson & Thépaut, 2007). We, therefore, reason that
Machiavellianism will negatively relate to both affect- and cognition-based trust.
Second, narcissism entails a disregard for others and is characterised by exploitativeness which ultimately
leads to defective interpersonal relationships (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001; Raskin & Terry, 1988).
Considering that affect-based trust is founded on socio-emotional exchange, which is also crucial in thedevelopment of interpersonal relationships (Blau, 1964), we expect narcissism to relate to lower levels ofaffective trust as a consequence of these impeded relationships with coworkers. Moreover, it will also leadto lower levels of cognition-based trust because narcissists are preoccupied with maintaining their inflated,but fragile self-image (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). As a result, they tend to be hypervigilant for ego threats(Horvath & Morf, 2009). This hypervigilance translates into lower levels of cognition-based trust in others
to prevent damage to their self-image.
Last, psychopathy involves a lack of empathy (Boddy et al., 2010), reduced emotionality (Benning,
Patrick, Blonigen, Hicks, & Iacono, 2005) and poor emotion recognition in others (Decety, Skelly, Yoder& Kiehl, 2014). These characteristics of psychopaths will lead to fewer and more deficient interpersonal
relationships compared to non-psychopaths. We consequently expect psychopathy to negatively relate toaffect-based trust as well. Considering that psychopathy’s emotional detachment seems to concord withmore rational behaviour (Osumi & Ohira, 2010), we do not expect psychopathy to be significantly related
to lower levels of cognition-based trust.
In turn, the distinction between affect-based and cognition-based trust is relevant when relating trust to55

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 44-66
psychological contract types. Building on Rousseau et al. (1998), one could argue that affect-based trust
would relate to socio-emotional exchanges while cognition-based trust would relate to transactional
exchanges. Cognition-based trust fits with the quid-pro-quo nature of the transactional psychologicalcontract while affect-based trust is required to fully establish the trusting, long-term commitment thatcharacterises relational psychological contracts (Rousseau, 1990). Tentative evidence for these links were
found in a qualitative study by Atkinson (2007), who confirmed that cognition-based trust and affectbased trust were related to transactional and relational psychological contracts, respectively. Considering
the above, we expect that cognition-based trust will stimulate the development of transactional contracts
while both cognition and affect-based trust are needed to stimulate relational psychological contract
formation. A lack of both types of trust will likely result in instable and closely-monitored transactional
psychological contracts.
Proposition 5: Machiavellists and narcissists are more likely to develop transactional psychologicalcontracts and less likely to develop relational psychological contracts because they experience lower
levels of cognition and affect-based trust.
Proposition 6: Psychopaths are more likely to develop transactional psychological contracts, and lesslikely to develop relational psychological contracts because they experience lower levels of affect-based
trust.
The mediating role of interpersonal conflict
While many definitions and operationalisations of interpersonal conflict can be found in the literature, wewill focus on ‘interpersonal conflict’ between employees and other organisational members that represent
the organisation. We define interpersonal conflict as “...a dynamic process that occurs between
interdependent parties as they experience negative emotional reactions to perceived disagreements andinterference with the attainment of their goals” (Barki & Hartwick, 2004: 218). A further distinction isoften made between task, process and relationship conflict (Barki & Hartwick, 2004). Task and process
conflict both pertain to the task, respectively, to the content and the outcomes of the task, and to thelogistics of the task. Relationship conflict refers to interpersonal issues between individuals that are related
to characteristics of individuals instead of the task (Jehn & Bendersky, 2003).
We propose that all three dark triad traits will positively relate with interpersonal conflict, and relationshipconflict in particular. The dark triad of personality traits all entail a general lack of concern for the wellbeing of others complemented by highly self-oriented attitudes and behaviours (Paulhus & Williams,
2002). Such a focus on the individual’s satisfaction over the satisfaction of others, accompanied by a needfor status and power, will likely trigger conflicts with coworkers. For example, the striving for status andpower of employees who score high on the dark triad may lead to competition while the lack of concern
for other may lead to communication problems, which in turn may trigger interpersonal conflict (Cosier& Rose, 1977).
Although we propose that all three dark triad traits will positively relate to interpersonal conflict, we
believe that the strength of these relationships may differ between the traits; we expect that psychopathy
will demonstrate the strongest relationship, whereas Machiavellianism will show the weakest relationshipwith interpersonal conflict. First, one might argue that Machiavellists may actually be able to avoid
interpersonal conflict because they can effectively manipulate others (Christie & Geis, 1970).
56

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 44-66
Machiavellists think strategically, translating into a long-term orientation (Jones & Paulhus, 2010), good
impulse control (Jones & Paulhus, 2011), and good deceptive skills (Geis & Moon, 1981). However,Machiavellians are not always able to smoothly handle conflict situations, and often resort toconfrontational conflict handling styles (Jones & Melcher, 1982), which may increase conflict.
Additionally, Machiavellianism has also been linked to frequent use of “hard” manipulation tactics, suchas threatening with punishment (Jonason et al., 2012). Based on these arguments, we propose that
Machiavellianism is weakly positively related to interpersonal conflict. Second, we believe thatpsychopathy is most strongly related to interpersonal conflict because it is associated with impulsivity anda lack of self-regulation (Jonason & Tost, 2010). Because psychopaths have difficulties controlling their
immediate impulses, they are more likely to resort to aggressive behavioural responses (Tangney,
Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). These aggressive responses are likely to further aggravate interpersonal
conflict (Hershcovis et al., 2007) and may even lead to an escalation of conflict (Anderson & Pearson,1999).
We reason that interpersonal conflict will prevent the development and sustenance of a relational
psychological contract. Relational contracts typically emphasise the exchange of inducements that aim todevelop and nurture a long-term, trusting exchange agreement with the employer (Rousseau, 1990).
However, interpersonal conflict is likely to damage such a relationship, leading employees to shift to amore basic transactional psychological contract. Likewise, research shows that psychological contract
breach may lead to employees shifting from a relational to a transactional psychological contract (Lester,
Kickul & Bergmann, 2007). Moreover, repeated interpersonal conflict decreases goodwill and mutual
understanding, and erodes mutual trust (Langfred, 2007), all essential elements to form a relational
psychological contract (Blau, 1964). We, therefore, hypothesise that interpersonal conflict will be
negatively related to the relational psychological contracts, and positively to transactional psychologicalcontracts.
Proposition 7: All dark triad traits are positively related to interpersonal conflict, psychopathy being morestrongly related to interpersonal conflict than narcissism, and narcissism being more strongly related tointerpersonal conflict than Machiavellianism.
Proposition 8: Machiavellists, narcissists, and psychopaths are more likely to develop transactional
psychological contracts, and less likely to develop relational psychological contracts, because theyexperience higher levels of interpersonal conflict.
The moderating role of self-control
Research suggests that the dark triad of personality does not uniformly yield negative outcomes (Furnham
et al., 2013). These traits may actually help people to get ahead in the workplace in certain situations(Levenson et al., 1995). For example, Smith and Lilienfeld (2013) suggested that low to moderate levelsof psychopathy might actually have adaptive features, resulting in curvilinear relationships between
psychopathy and workplace outcomes. Building on these suggestions, we propose that the relationships
between the dark triad traits and the mediators in our model display curvilinear patterns. More precisely,
we propose an indirect curvilinear effect, that manifests itself through self-control.
The dark triad of personality has recently been linked to self-control (Jonason & Tost, 2010; Jones &Paulhus, 2011). In general, Life History Theory (Wilson, 1975) suggests that people with high dark triad
57

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 44-66
scores live life according to a ‘fast strategy’, characterised by limited self-control, a lack of attention for
future consequences, and high levels of attention deficit disorders (Jonason & Tost, 2010). This lack ofself-control is most prominent for psychopaths, who have been shown to engage in dysfunctional
impulsivity (Jones & Paulhus, 2011). Likewise, narcissism can also be linked to impulsivity, althoughnarcissists engage more in functional impulsivity (Jones & Paulhus, 2011). Machiavellians, in contrast,
appear to possess some form of self-control, resulting in no significant relationships between
Machiavellianism and impulse control (Jones & Paulhus, 2011). Based on these findings, we propose:
Proposition 9: Psychopathy and narcissism are negatively related to self-control; this relationship isstrongest for psychopathy.
Self-control, in turn, is expected to moderate the relationships between the dark triad of personality andthe mediators in our model, that is, the norm of reciprocity, careerism, perceived organisational support,
trust, and interpersonal conflict. Self-regulation theory stipulates that people use resources to regulate theirimpulses and act in line with social norms (Baumeister, Gailliot, DeWall, & Oaten, 2006). However, whenresources are depleted, this regulation of impulses fails and personality traits fully manifest themselves inovert behaviours. For example, an employee with high scores on Machiavellianism may be inclined to
distrust others. However, as long as this employee has sufficient resources to engage in self-control, he/she
may be able to inhibit impulses and display trusting behaviour despite his/her Machiavellistic personality.
In other words, self-control is expected to buffer the relationships between the dark triad of personality
traits and the abovementioned mediators in our theoretical model. Given that psychopathy and narcissism
negatively relate to self-control, we propose the presence of an indirect moderator effect: psychopathy andnarcissism moderate the relationships between the dark triad of personality and the mediators in our model,
via self-control. For example, when an employee scores high on both Machiavellianism and psychopathy,
he/she may both be inclined to distrust coworkers and lack the resources to engage in self-control to inhibit
these impulses. This indirect moderator effect may explain earlier suggestions of curvilinear effects of thedark triad traits (Smith & Lilienfeld, 2013).
Proposition 10: Psychopathy and narcissism indirectly moderate the relationships between the dark triadof personality and the mediators (norm of reciprocity, careerism, perceived organisational support, trust,and interpersonal conflict) in our model, via self-control.

Discussion
We presented a theoretical model that relates the dark triad of personality – that is, Machiavellianism,
narcissism, and psychopathy – to transactional and relational psychological contract types. Briefly put,
our model proposes that all three dark triad traits will lead employees to develop a transactional as opposed
to a relational psychological contract. Moreover, we introduced six mediators that explained these
relationships. The dark triad of personality can be related to psychological contract types because they
influence the norm of reciprocity, careerism, perceived organisational support, trust, and interpersonal
conflict of employees. Finally, we proposed that psychopathy and narcissism indirectly moderate therelationships between the dark triad traits and these six mediators. Employees with high scores on
psychopathy and narcissism are suggested to have lower levels of self-control, meaning that they will not
be able to control the behaviours originating from the three dark triad traits.

58

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 44-66
Our model adds to the literature in a number of ways. First, there is a dearth of research on antecedents ofpsychological contract content (Conway & Briner, 2009). Knowing which factors influence thedevelopment of a certain psychological contract type is nonetheless important as these contract types havebeen related to a number of outcomes (e.g., Aggarwal & Bhargava, 2010; Millward & Hopkins, 1998).
We, hence, add to the literature that examined personality traits as antecedents of psychological contract
types (Raja et al., 2004; Tallman & Bruning, 2008; Vantilborgh et al., 2013). In contrast to these priorstudies, we highlight the influence of dark as opposed to bright traits (e.g., the Big Five). Second, previous
studies relating personality traits to psychological contract types explained relationships based on theprocesses of choice, construal, and enactment (Raja et al., 2004). However, these processes were neverempirically tested and remained rather elusive and abstract. We introduced six specific mediators that canbe directly empirically scrutinised. Third, our model offers a theoretical explanation for earlier suggestions
that the dark triad traits may show curvilinear relationships with employee cognitions, attitudes, andbehaviours (Smith & Lilienfeld, 2013). We introduce self-control as a moderator in the relationships
between the dark triad traits and the six mediators of our model. While self-control and impulsivity havefrequently been linked to the dark triad (Jonason & Tost, 2010), it has also been demonstrated that selfcontrol influences how personality affects attitudes and behaviours (Baumeister et al., 2006). By linking
psychopathy and narcissism to self-control and by positioning self-control as a moderator, we illuminate
a potentially complex interaction between the dark triad traits. In particular, this unique perspective
explains how the dark triad traits can enhance each other’s effects because they also diminish self-control.
A number of avenues can be further explored to expand our theoretical model. First, recent studies suggestthat the dark triad could be expanded to form the dark tetrad, by adding sadism to the constellation of traits(Paulhus & Buckels, 2011). Hence, it could be interesting to theorise how sadism could be integrated in
our theoretical model. For example, employees who score high on sadism may encounter moreinterpersonal conflict because they display ‘schadenfreude’ when coworkers experience misfortunes,
leading to the development of transactional psychological contracts. Second, the dark triad of personality
is likely also related to employees’ reactions to psychological contract breach. For example, the lack oftrust that typifies Machiavellianism may lead to increased vigilance and a higher likelihood to perceive
psychological contract breaches (Morrison & Robinson, 1997). Hence, it appears that there are ample
opportunities to further integrate these dark traits into theoretical models on the consequences ofpsychological contract breach and violation. Third, we focussed on how the dark triad personality traits
influence the development of employees’ psychological contracts. However, it also appears important toinvestigate how supervisors’ or colleagues’ personality traits relate to subordinates’ psychological contract
content and reactions to psychological contract breach. Research suggests that supervisors are one of themost important factors in the development of psychological contracts (Conway & Briner, 2009). For
example, a Machiavellian supervisor may offer mainly transactional inducements that can be easily
monitored to his subordinates because he does not trust them. Consequently, these subordinates may be
more likely to develop a transactional psychological contract. Likewise, a psychopathic supervisor may
not be able to show empathy when subordinates’ psychological contracts are breached, further aggravating
their reactions.

59

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 44-66

References

Aggarwal, U., & Bhargava, S. (2010). Predictors and Outcomes of Relational and Transactional
Psychological Contract. Psychological Studies, 55(3), 195-207. doi:10.1007/s12646-010-0033-2
Akhtar, R., Ahmetoglu, G., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2013). Greed is good? Assessing the relationshipbetween entrepreneurship and subclinical psychopathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(3),420-425.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5thed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Andersson, L.M., & Pearson, C.M. (1999). Effect of Tit for Tat? the Spiraling in the Workplace Incivility.
Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452-471. doi:10.2307/259136
Argyris, C. (1960). Understanding organizational behavior. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
Aselage, J., & Eisenberger, R. (2003). Perceived organizational support and psychological contracts: atheoretical integration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 509, 491-509.
Atkinson, C. (2007). Trust and the psychological contract. Employee Relations, 29(3), 227-246.
doi:10.1108/01425450710741720
Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. (2004). Conceptualizing the construct of interpersonal conflict. International
Journal of Conflict Management, 15(3), 216-244.
Becker, J. A., & Dan O’Hair, H. (2007). Machiavellians’ motives in organizational citizenship behavior.
Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35(3), 246-267.
Baumeister, R.F., Gailliot, M., DeWall, C.N., & Oaten, M. (2006). Self-regulation and personality: howinterventions increase regulatory success, and how depletion moderates the effects of traits on behavior.
Journal of Personality, 74(6), 1773–801. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00428.x
Benning, S.D., Patrick, C.J., Blonigen, D.M., Hicks, B.M., & Iacono, W.G. (2005). Estimating facets ofpsychopathy from normal personality traits: a step toward community epidemiological investigations.
Assessment, 12(1), 3-18. doi:10.1177/1073191104271223
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Boddy, C.R. (2011). Corporate Psychopaths, Bullying and Unfair Supervision in the Workplace. Journalof Business Ethics, 100(3), 367-379. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0689-5

60

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 44-66
Boddy, C.R., Ladyshewsky, R.K., & Galvin, P. (2010). The Influence of Corporate Psychopaths on
Corporate Social Responsibility and Organizational Commitment to Employees. Journal of Business
Ethics, 97(1), 1-19. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0492-3
Bratton, V. K., & Kacmar, K. M. (2004). Extreme careerism: The dark side of impression management.
In R.W Griffin & A.M O’Leary-Kelly (eds). The dark side of organizational behavior (pp.291-308). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Campbell, W.K., Brunell, A.B., & Finkel, E.J. (2006). Narcissism, interpersonal self-regulation, andromantic relationships: An agency model approach. In K.D, Vohs & E.J. Finkel (eds.). Self andrelationships: Connecting intrapersonal and interpersonal processes (pp.57-83). New York: Guilford
Chiaburu, D.S., Muñoz, G.J., & Gardner, R.G. (2013). How to Spot a Careerist Early On: Psychopathy
and Exchange Ideology as Predictors of Careerism. Journal of business ethics, 118(3), 473-486.
Christie, R. (1970). Scale construction. In R. Christine & F. Geis (eds.). Studies in Machiavellism (pp. 1034). New York: Academic Press
Cleckley, H. (1941). The mask of sanity; an attempt to reinterpret the so-called psychopathic personality.
Oxford, England: Mosby.
Conway, N., & Briner, R.B. (2009). Fifty years of psychological contract research: What do we know andwhat are the main challenges? International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 21, 71131.
Cooke, D. J., & Michie, C. (2001). Refining the construct of psychopath: Towards a hierarchical model.
Psychological Assessment, 13(2), 171-188. doi:10.1037//1040-3590.13.2.171
Cosier, R.A., & Rose, G.L. (1977). Cognitive conflict and goal conflict effects on task performance.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 19(2), 378-391.
Dahling, J.J., Whitaker, B.G., & Levy, P.E. (2009). The Development and Validation of a New
Machiavellianism Scale. Journal of Management, 35(2), 219-257. doi:10.1177/0149206308318618
Decety, J., Skelly, L., Yoder, K.J., & Kiehl, K.A. (2014). Neural processing of dynamic emotional facial
expressions in psychopaths. Social Neuroscience, 9(1), 36-49. doi:10.1080/17470919.2013.866905
DePaulo, B.M., & Rosenthal, R. (1979). Telling lies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,37(10), 1713-1722
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived Organizational Support.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500-507.
Feldman, D.C. (1985). The new careerism: Origins, tenets, and consequences. The Industrial
Psychologist, 22(1), 39-44.

61

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 44-66
Feldman, D. C., & Weitz, B.A. (1991). From the invisible hand to the gladhand: Understanding a careeristorientation to work. Human Resource Management, 30(2), 237-257.
Furnham, A., Richards, S.C., & Paulhus, D.L. (2013). The Dark Triad of Personality: A 10 Year Review.
Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(3), 199-216. doi:10.1111/spc3.12018
Gable, M., & Topol, M.T. (1988). Machiavellianism and the department store executive. Journal of
Retailing, 64(1), 68-84
Gallucci, M., & Perugini, M. (2000). An experimental test of a game-theoretical model of reciprocity.
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(4), 367-389.
Geis, F.L., & Moon, T.H. (1981). Machiavellianism and deception. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 41(4), 766-775. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.41.4.766
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological
Review, 25(2), 161-178. doi:10.2307/2092623
Hershcovis, M.S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K.A, Dupré, K.E., Inness, M., & Sivanathan, N. (2007).
Predicting workplace aggression: a meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 228-38.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.228
Horvath, S., & Morf, C. C. (2009). Narcissistic defensiveness: Hypervigilance and avoidance ofworthlessness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(6), 1252-1258.
Jakobwitz, S., & Egan, V. (2006). The dark triad and normal personality traits. Personality and Individual
Differences, 40(2), 331-339. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.07.006
Jehn, K. A., & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup Conflict in Organizations: a Contingency Perspective on
the Conflict-Outcome Relationship. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25(03), 187-242.
doi:10.1016/S0191-3085(03)25005-X
Jensen, J.M., Opland, R.A., & Ryan, A.M. (2009). Psychological Contracts and Counterproductive Work
Behaviors: Employee Responses to Transactional and Relational Breach. Journal of Business andPsychology, 25(4), 555-568. doi:10.1007/s10869-009-9148-7
Jonason, P.K., Slomski, S., & Partyka, J. (2012). The Dark Triad at work: How toxic employees get theirway. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(3), 449-453. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.008
Jonason, P. K., & Tost, J. (2010). I just cannot control myself: The Dark Triad and self-control. Personality
and Individual Differences, 49(6), 611-615. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.031
Jonason, P.K., & Webster, G.D. (2010). The dirty dozen: a concise measure of the dark triad.
Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 420-432. doi:10.1037/a0019265

62

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 44-66
Jones, D.N., & Figueredo, A.J. (2013). The Core of Darkness : Uncovering the Heart of the Dark Triad.
European Journal of Personality, 27, 521-531.
Jones, D.N., & Paulhus, D.L. (2010). Different Provocations Trigger Aggression in Narcissists andPsychopaths. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1(1), 12-18. doi:10.1177/1948550609347591
Jones, D.N., & Paulhus, D.L. (2011). The role of impulsivity in the Dark Triad of personality. Personality
and Individual Differences, 51(5), 679-682. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.04.011
Jones, R.E., & Melcher, B.H. (1982). Personality and the preference for modes of conflict resolution.
Human Relations, 35(8), 649-658.
Judge, T.A., LePine, J.A., & Rich, B.L. (2006). Loving yourself abundantly: relationship of the narcissistic
personality to self-and other perceptions of workplace deviance, leadership, and task and contextual
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 762-776
Khoo, H.S., & Burch, G.S.J. (2008). The ‘dark side’ of leadership personality and transformational
leadership: An exploratory study. personality and individual differences, 44(1), 86-97.
Kuyumcu, D., & Dahling, J.J. (2013). Constraints for Some, Opportunities for Others? Interactive andIndirect Effects of Machiavellianism and Organizational Constraints on Task Performance Ratings.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(2), 301-310. doi:10.1007/s10869-013-9314-9
Langfred, C.W. (2007). The Downside of Self-Management: A Longitudinal Study of the Effects ofConflict on Trust, Autonomy, and Task Interdependence in Self-Managing Teams. Academy ofManagement Journal, 50(4), 885-900.
Lester, S.W., Kickul, J.R., & Bergmann, T.J. (2007). Managing employee perceptions of the psychologicalcontract over time: The role of employer social accounts and contract fulfillment. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 28(2), 191-208.
Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing psychopathic attributes in anoninstitutionalized population. Journal of personality and social psychology, 68(1), 151-158
Lewis, J.D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a Social Reality. Social Forces, 63(4), 967-985.
Lilienfeld, S.O., & Andrews, B.P. (1996). Development and preliminary validation of a self-reportmeasure of psychopathic personality traits in noncriminal population. Journal of personality assessment,
66(3), 488-524.
Liu, C.C. (2008). The Relationship Between Machiavellianism and Knowledge Sharing Willingness.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 22(3), 233-240. doi:10.1007/s10869-008-9065-1
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and Cognition-Based Trust As Foundations for Interpersonal
Cooperation in Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24-59. doi:10.2307/256727

63

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 44-66
Machiavelli, N. (1944). Machiavelli’s the Prince. In H. Craig (ed.). Machiavelli’s the Prince: an
Elizabethan translation. North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press.
Meyer, H. D. (1992). Norms and self-interest in ultimatum bargaining: The prince’s prudence. Journal of
Economic Psychology, 13(2), 215-232.
MacNeil, I. (1985). Relational contract: What we do and do not know. Wisconsin Law Review, 483-525.

Millward, L.J., & Hopkins, L.J. (1998). Psychological Contracts, Organizational and Job Commitment.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(16), 1530–-1556. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01689.x
Morf, C.C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self-regulatory
processing model. Psychological inquiry, 12(4), 177-196.
Morf, C.C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self-regulatory
processing model. Psychological inquiry, 12(4), 177-196.
Morrison, E., & Robinson, S. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychologicalcontract violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 226-256.
O’Boyle, E.H., Forsyth, D.R., Banks, G.C., & McDaniel, M.A. (2012). A meta-analysis of the Dark Triadand work behavior: a social exchange perspective. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 557-79.
doi:10.1037/a0025679
Osumi, T., & Ohira, H. (2010). The positive side of psychopathy: Emotional detachment in psychopathy
and rational decision-making in the ultimatum game. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(5), 451456. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.04.016
Paulhus, D. L., & Buckels, E. E. (2011). The Dark Tetrad of Personality: Relevance to Terrorist Groups.
Paper presented to Defense Research and Development Canada (DRDC) agency, Toronto, Canada.
Paulhus, D.L., & Williams, K.M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism,
and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556-563. doi:10.1016/S00926566(02)00505-6
Penney, L.M., & Spector, P.E. (2002). Narcissism and Counterproductive Work Behavior: Do Bigger
Egos Mean Bigger Problems ? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10(June), 126-134.
Perugini, M., Gallucci, M., Presaghi, F., & Ercolani, A. P. (2003). The personal norm of reciprocity.
European Journal of Personality, 17(4), 251-283.
Petrides, K. V, Vernon, P. a, Schermer, J. A., & Veselka, L. (2011). Trait emotional intelligence and thedark triad traits of personality. Twin Research and Human Genetics: The Official Journal of theInternational Society for Twin Studies, 14(1), 35-41. doi:10.1375/twin.14.1.35

64

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 44-66
Raja, U., Johns, G., & Ntalianis, F. (2004). The impact of personality on psychological contracts. Academyof Management Journal, 47(3), 350-367. doi:10.2307/20159586
Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory
and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 890902. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.54.5.890
Resick, C.J., Whitman, D.S., Weingarden, S.M., & Hiller, N.J. (2009). The bright-side and the dark-sideof CEO personality: examining core self-evaluations, narcissism, transformational leadership, andstrategic influence. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1365-1381. doi:10.1037/a0016238
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature.
Journal of applied psychology, 87(4), 698.
Richard, O.C., McMillan-Capehart, A., Bhuian, S.N., & Taylor, E.C. (2009). Antecedents andconsequences of psychological contracts: Does organizational culture really matter? Journal of BusinessResearch, 62(8), 818-825. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.04.001
Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities
and Rights Journal, 2(2), 121-139. doi:10.1007/BF01384942
Rousseau, D. M. (1990). New hire perceptions of their own and their employer’s obligations: A study ofpsychologicalcontracts.
Journalof
Organizational
Behavior,
11(5),
389-400.
doi:10.1002/job.4030110506
Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwrittenagreements. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A crossdiscipline view of trust. Academy of management review, 23(3), 393-404.
Rousseau, D. M., Hansen, S., & Tomprou, M. (2015). Psychological contract theory 2.0. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Sahlins, M. D. (1972). Stone age economics. New York: Transaction Publishers.
Sakalaki, M., Richardson, C., & Thépaut, Y. (2007). Machiavellianism and Economic Opportunism.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(6), 1181-1190.
Scherer, K.T., Baysinger, M., Zolynsky, D., & LeBreton, J.M. (2013). Predicting counterproductive work
behaviors with sub-clinical psychopathy: Beyond the Five Factor Model of personality. Personality andIndividual Differences, 55(3), 300-305.
Smith, S.F., & Lilienfeld, S.O. (2013). Psychopathy in the workplace: The knowns and unknowns.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18(2), 204-218. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2012.11.007

65

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 44-66
Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and structure in leader-member exchange. Academy ofmanagement Review, 22(2), 522-552.
Suddath, C. (2010). Top 10 CEO scandals. Retrieved from www.time.com
Tallman, R.R.J., & Bruning, N.S. (2008). Relating employees’ psychological contracts to theirpersonality. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(6), 688-712. doi:10.1108/02683940810894756
Tangney, J.P., Baumeister, R.F., & Boone, A.L. (2004). High self‐control predicts good adjustment, lesspathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of personality, 72(2), 271-324.
Vantilborgh, T., Bidee, J., Pepermans, R., Willems, J., Huybrechts, G., & Jegers, M. (2013). Revisiting
the Relationship between Personality and Psychological Contracts: A Moderated Mediation Model
Explaining Volunteer Performance. Social Service Review, 87(1), 158-186. doi:10.1086/669825
Vantilborgh, T., Bidee, J., Pepermans, R., Willems, J., Huybrechts, G., & Jegers, M. (2014). Effects ofideological and relational psychological contract breach and fulfilment on volunteers’ work effort.
European
JournalofWork
andOrganizational
Psychology,
23(2),
217-230.
doi:10.1080/1359432X.2012.740170
Vazire, S., & Funder, D. C. (2006). Impulsivity and the self-defeating behavior of narcissists. Personality
and Social Psychology Review, 10(2), 154-165.
Wallace, H.M., & Baumeister, R.F. (2002). The performance of narcissists rises and falls with perceived
opportunity for glory. Journal of personality and social psychology, 82(5), 819-834
Watson, P.J., Grisham, S.O., Trotter, M.V., & Biderman, M.D. (1984). Narcissism and empathy: Validity
evidence for the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of personality assessment, 48(3), 301-305.
Widom, C. S. (1977). A methodology for studying noninstitutionalized psychopaths. Journal of consulting
and clinical psychology, 45(4), 674-683
Wilson, D.S., Near, D., & Miller, R.R. (1996). Machiavellianism: A synthesis of the evolutionary andpsychological literatures. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 285-299. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.119.2.285
Wilson, E.O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

66

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 67-89

Employee Social Liability – More than just low social capital within theworkplace
RACHEL MORRISON* and KEITH MACKY**
Abstract
We describe a construct termed employee social liability (ESL); the antithesis of employee social
capital. A conceptualisation of social liability does not yet exist and is the aim of this paper. We
propose that ESL arises from workplace social networks and comprises of four distinct components:
negative behaviour from others, distrust of others, unwanted social demands on resources, and a lackof reciprocity. Social networks, therefore, include some relationships that build an employee’s social
capital, others that create social liabilities and some relationships that might do both. An individual
can, therefore, have high or low levels of capital and many or few liabilities. We propose that
employees with high social capital and relatively few social liabilities should also have improved wellbeing and performance outcomes.

Key words: Organisational relationships, social capital, social liability, engagement, well-being,
careers, network
The influence of other people in an employee’s social networks has long been the subject of researchinterest from an organisational and psychological perspective. Under the umbrella of positive
psychology, there is a rich body of research on positive, pro-social organisational behaviour which
generally aims to identify situations that enable optimal human flourishing (Fredrickson & Losada,
2005; McDonald & O'Callaghan, 2008; Roberts, 2006). Positive psychology at work focusses on areas
such as organisational citizenship (Bolino, Turnley, & Bloodgood, 2002; Wat & Shaffer, 2004), wellbeing (Arnold, Turner, Barling, Kelloway, & McKee, 2007; Keyes, Shmotkin, & Ryff, 2002) andcreativity (Appelbaum, Iaconi, & Matousek, 2007). However, while there is a large and ever growing
body of research on positive and pro-social organisational behaviour, the last two decades have also
seen an explosion of research on negative workplace behaviours. This includes (among others)
workplace deviance (Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Hershcovis & Barling, 2010; Lee & Allen, 2002),
bullying and harassment (Einarsen, 1999; Einarsen, Hoel, & Notelaers, 2009; Einarsen & Skogstad,1996), social undermining (Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002; Duffy, Scott, Shaw, Tepper, & Aquino,2012), incivility (Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Hutton, 2006; Pearson, Anderson, & Wegner, 2001),
and aggression and abuse (Hershcovis & Barling, 2010; Neuman & Baron, 2005). While studies using
such constructs typically go to some lengths to conceptually define and measure them, there is,nonetheless, a conceptual overlap and redundancy in their definition and measurement. This has led tocalls for construct synthesis and reintegration when studying the impact that co-workers have on eachother (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008).
In answering this call, we draw on the notion of social capital (Adler & Kwon, 2002) as a theoreticalframework with which to consider the many and varied ways employees impact one another, both
positively and negatively. Social capital in the workplace is a construct that has received a great deal*

Rachel Morrison teaches undergraduate and post graduate Organisational Behaviour in the Management Department
within Faculty of Business and Law. AUT University, Private Bag 92006, Auckland 1142, New Zealand**Keith Macky has had a long career in both academia and the consulting industry. Business and Enterprise,
MAINZ Campus, Tai Poutini Polytechnic, PO Box 90113 Auckland 1142, NZ

67

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 67-89
of recent attention in both the academic and practitioner literature, having been of interest to
researchers for several decades (for example; Adler & Kwon, 2002; Andrews, 2010; Behtoui &Neergaard, 2012; Carr, Cole, Ring, & Blettner, 2011; Lazarova & Taylor, 2009; Maurer, Bartsch, &Ebers, 2011; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Oldroyd & Morris, 2012; Zahra, 2010). Social capital is abroad, multilevel term and, as such, has been described as an attribute of nations and geographic
regions (Fukuyama, 1995), communities (Jacobs, 1961; Putnam, 1995), organisations (Leana &VanBuren, 1999) and individuals (Coleman, 1988; Coleman, 1990; Kouvonen et al., 2006; Labianca& Brass, 2006; Portes, 1998). However, in spite of this large body of research, evidence remains
sparse on social capital as it pertains to the work context specifically. Given the amount of time thatworkers in the global economy spend at work, as opposed with interaction with neighbours or friends,
this is an important gap (Suzuki et al., 2010).
Although social capital has been defined in many different ways, most researchers generally agree that
relationships, networks, and norms are important dimensions of the concept. According to one view(the social cohesion definition), social capital is conceptualised as a group attribute and analysed interms of those features of social relationships that facilitate collective action for mutual benefit. It is,therefore, seen as a characteristic of social groups rather than individuals (Kawachi, 1999); being
derived from shared experiences which, in turn, foster mutual trust and reciprocity (Shortt, 2004). In
contrast, the network theory of social capital holds that, because it is created in the connections among
and between individuals, social capital is an asset of the individual (Coleman, 1988; Coleman, 1990;
Kouvonen et al., 2006; Labianca & Brass, 2006; Portes, 1998). Our conceptualisation of social capitaland liability, like that of Labianca and Brass (2006) and others, focusses on individuals’ positions
within social networks and the potential to improve their own outcomes, as well as those of their group,
because of these social contacts (Burt, 2000; Coleman, 1990).
Although scholars have focussed on the benefits accrued from acquiring social capital, both in and outof the workplace, very little attention has been given to the potential all employees have to also acquire“liabilities” in their social and workplace networks. The aim of this paper, therefore, is to extend theconcept of social capital to incorporate the potential liabilities that might accrue to individuals fromtheir social network. First, we review the extant views on social capital at the individual employee
level of analysis. A conceptual differentiation is then made between social capital and social liability,with the latter defined and expanded upon. Proposed antecedents and consequences of social liabilities
are then explored, and a model to guide future research is presented. The paper ends with a discussionof the potential impact and importance on this construct for individuals and organisations.

Defining Employee Social Capital and Liability
Employee Social Capital
Sobel (2002) takes an individual, economic view of social capital, stating that social capital describes“circumstances in which individuals can use membership in groups and networks to secure
benefits” (Sobel, 2002, p.139). This reflects the definition of Pierre Bourdieu (1986) who states
Social capital is an attribute of an individual in a social context. One can acquire social capitalthrough purposeful actions and can transform social capital into conventional economic gains.
The ability to do so, however, depends on the nature of the social obligations, connections, andnetworks available to you.

68New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 67-89
Glaeser, Laibson and Sacerdote (2002) also take an individual perspective but seem to confuse
antecedents of social capital with social capital itself stating:
we define individual social capital as a person’s social characteristics – including social skills,
charisma, and the size of his Rolodex – which enable him to reap market and non-market
returns from interactions with others. (Glaeser, Laibson, & Sacerdote, 2002: F438).
While individual characteristics may indeed make social capital easier to acquire, they are best thoughtof as antecedents to acquiring genuine social capital but with no guarantee that the returns will beobtained (in the same way that one may own a business but that venture may not make money).
Thus, employee social capital can be taken to be the sum of the resources that accrue to an individual,by virtue of possessing networks (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). Most people are embedded in social
situations and can, therefore, take advantage of the wider social relations in which their ties areembedded. We are specifically looking at the workplace as the context for the ties and are, therefore,
focussing on individual employees as the level of analysis. If an individual’s social capital is his/her
network of social connections that assist them in functioning in society (Coleman, 1990), we can,therefore, define employee social capital as:
An employee’s network of social connections that provides resources that enhance functioning
at work (i.e. in their role as employees), assisting in achieving goals and likely to improvehealth and well-being.
Workplace social capital is generally conceptualised as comprising two constructs: trust andreciprocity (Kouvonen et al., 2006; Suzuki et al., 2010), and as being on a continuum from low to high.
Therefore, employees with high levels of trust and reciprocity in their workplace relationships andsocial networks would be said to have high levels of social capital. Duffy et al. (2012; p. 644), state“…to thrive in work contexts, individuals must develop social capital, make high-quality connections
with capable others, and maintain some positive standing in the work environment.”
Trust
While trust remains a construct that lacks a universally accepted definition in organisational research,
there is agreement that it is a psychological state with both affective and motivational components(Kramer, 1999). As an affective psychological state, trust (or lack thereof) is seen as developing frompeople’s experiences over time, of how they have been treated or have seen others treated. Trustdevelops when the actions of others are expected to be beneficial or at least not harmful to one’s own
interests (Robinson, 1996). Trust also invokes conceptions of benevolence, predictability and fairness(Cunningham & MacGregor, 2000).
Mayer, Davis & Schoorman (1995) state trust is “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to theactions of another party based on the expectation that the other party will perform a particular action
important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party.” For theindividual, having trust in others reflects social capital in the sense that there is an expectation that
others’ behaviours will be beneficial to the self. Trust is, therefore, both an input to and an outcome ofrelationships. As a socio-emotional outcome of interpersonal relationships trust becomes, as Kramer(1999) points out, an important precursor to increased cooperation, altruism and extra-role behaviours
between organisational members. Such behaviours in turn help sustain a climate of trust where,according to social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Emerson, 1976, 1987), employees respond in kindwith behaviours that further sustain trust and commitment.
69

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 67-89

Reciprocity
The second component of social capital is reciprocity, measured by items such as, “would you say thatmost of the time people in your company try to be helpful, or that they are mostly just looking out forthemselves?” (Suzuki et al., 2010: 1368). People will often evaluate their relationships, particularly
workplace relationships, in terms of investments (such as time spent, effort, and support offered) andoutcomes (such as support received and favours granted). A central proposition of equity theory(Adams, 1965; Blau, 1964) is that people have a tendency to seek reciprocity in relationships and will
become depressed or distressed if they perceive the relationship to be inequitable (Bakker, Schaufeli,
Demerouti, Janssen, Van der Hulst & Brouwer, 2000). Reciprocity exists when a person’s investments
and outcomes in a given relationship are proportional to the investments and outcomes of the otherperson (Bakker et al., 2000).
Employee Social Liability
In this section we seek to introduce Employee Social Liability (ESL) as it relates to the accrual of, notresources, but “liabilities”. While social capital represents the benefits an individual accrues from theirsocial network and the positive relationships they have with others (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992), we
propose that employees also have social liabilities which imply increased constraints or demands on
resources in order to manage negative, taxing, or distracting relationships at work. Liabilities are thosemembers of one’s network who, intentionally or unintentionally, pose a hindrance to their functioning
and achievements at work. We build upon Labianca and Brass (2006), who defined liabilities in termsof individual negative relationships (or ties) as “the linear combination of strength, reciprocity,
cognition, and social distance of each negative tie, summed across all negative ties.” (p. 599). We
extend this to look at employee social liabilities in terms of workplace and individual outcomes, as any
relationship (positive or negative) that hinders functioning at work, detracts from achieving goals, or
which negatively impacts on health and well-being. Importantly, these relationships may or may not
be ‘negative ties’ per se; a distracting, time consuming but otherwise friendly colleague could be aliability, and so too could a close friend whom most others in a social network despise. Further, wewiden the focus to all organisational relationships (comprised of other employees, colleagues, clients,
supervisors, etc.) and propose that an employee’s experience of and exposure to negative or unhelpful
workplace behaviours or individuals will contribute to the acquisition of social liabilities.
Employee social liability (ESL) can be thought of the antithesis of social capital in the workplace.
Related to the definition offered for of social capital, in the current paper we therefore define employeesocial liability as: “An employee’s network of social connections that hinder them in their functioning
at work, detracting from achieving goals and likely to negatively impact their health and well-being.”
ESL is a composite construct that we propose is comprised of four components. We see social
liabilities arising from a range of situations within an employee’s social network, some of which may
be temporary, giving rise to transient social liabilities, while others are more endemic and serve as amore sustained source of hindrance, distraction, and stress. These situations include having negative
relationships and interactions with others, dealings that are characterised by a lack of reciprocity andlow cooperation, individuals that engender distrust, people who serve as distractions from one’s tasks
or who are otherwise unhelpful, and those who display, at different times, varying combinations ofsuch qualities. A social network can, therefore, be (or become) dysfunctional in many ways. For
example, there may be negative relational norms (such as non-disclosure, favouritism, undermining,or sabotage), it could contain individuals with whom negative relationships exist, or where there is a70

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 67-89
lack of trust and/or reciprocity. We propose that social networks with such features, instead of adding
to an individual’s social capital, can instead be considered a social liability.
Expanding on the above, we propose that ESL is a higher level construct made up of four components,
which are:
1. distrust and suspicion of colleagues,
2. lack of reciprocity and cooperation from colleagues,
3. exposure to negative relationships and/or interactions at work, and4. high social demand and interpersonal distractions at work.
The first two components are closely (negatively) related to existing social capital measures (trust andreciprocity) but the second two would be unique to the higher level ESL construct. Each is described
below. And are shown graphically in Figure 1 (Path 1 to Path 4).
Figure 1: Relations among ESL, individual differences (the person), organisational climate (theorganisation), and organisational consequences (the outcomes).

1. Distrust in work relationships (Path 1)
Because the actions of others may generate perceptions of vulnerability or threat, it is then reasonable
to suggest that individuals will become defensive of the self if they have distrusting relationships withothers. We, therefore, see distrusting relationships as a form of social liability for the individual. Thisliability is a function of the extent to which individuals perceive the behaviour of others as (a)71New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 67-89
threatening or increasing a sense of vulnerability; (b) harmful to one self-interests; (c) undermining
their efforts and competency it the job; and (d) unfair, self-serving, and unsupportive.
Research into trust and distrust in organisations is not new. Salient here is the early work of Deutsch(1960) who differentiates between trust and distrust, conceptualising trust as an individual’s
confidence in the intentions of a relationship partner as well as the belief that a relationship partner
would behave as they hoped. Deutsch viewed distrust as, not simply a lack of trust, but rather as actual
suspicion; confidence about a relationship partner’s undesirable behaviour. Distrust “entails a state ofperceived vulnerability or risk that is derived from individuals’ uncertainty regarding the motives,
intentions, and prospective actions of others on whom they depend” (Kramer, 1999, p.517).
Therefore, distrust is understood to be the belief that others will not act in one’s best interests andfurther, may even engage in potentially injurious behaviour (Govier, 1994). We include these elements
in our concept of distrust and, if present, they will likely be a source of social liabilities in theemployee’s workplace social network.
2. Lack of reciprocity and low cooperation from colleagues (Path 2)
As previously stated, trust is an important precursor to reciprocity and cooperation between
organisational members. Such behaviours, in turn, help sustain a climate of trust where, according tosocial exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Emerson, 1962, 1987), employees respond in kind with trusting,committed behaviours. On the other hand, if employees experience distrust they will likely also believethat colleagues will not reciprocate favours, and cooperation will be low, negatively impacting on
productivity and goal attainment.
Those within a social network who do not reciprocate or who act uncooperatively will contribute tosocial liability for their colleagues. The implication is that, because things done for others will not bereciprocated, this creates a sunk social cost that will never generate a return. Low cooperation means
you cannot ask others to help out, leading to a climate of low social support in the network which adds
to the demands on an employee rather than acting as a resource.
3. Exposure to negative relationships and interactions at work (Path 3)
Labianca and Brass (2006) proposed negative social capital (negative relationships with others thatdetract from work and well-being) as being important when examining social networks. Negativesocial relationships are characterised by the intensity of dislike an employee has towards or perceives
from others in their collegial relationships. Further, these authors maintain that these negative
relationships can have greater power than positive relationships to explain workplace outcomes(Labianca & Brass, 2006)).
In terms of negative interactions, ambivalent relationships (or frenemies); i.e., relationships
characterised by both positivity and negativity have been found to be among the most stressful tomanage (Duffy et al., 2002; Uchino, Holt-Lunstad, Smith, & Bloor, 2004; Uchino, Holt-Lunstad, Uno,
& Flinders, 2001). Although it would be nice to think that supportive and friendly relationships would
not also be undermining, research suggests the opposite; that people often experience both support andconflict or undermining from the same person (Duffy et al., 2002; Duffy et al., 2012; Gottlieb &Wagner, 1991). When interactions with others in your social network are inconsistent, this can resultin perceptions of relational insecurity as well as a lack of control, trust, and predictability in therelationships (Duffy et al., 2002).

72

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 67-89
Duffy et al., (2012) investigated undermining in the context of envy in the workplace, hypothesisingthat when employees experience envy, they will be more likely to engage in undermining behaviours,
so long as they are also relatively less psychologically connected (socially identified) with theircolleagues and are not prevented by strong norms discouraging undermining. Duffy, et al., (2002)
conducted a study where police officers filled out a survey about how often their closest colleagues
undermined and/or supported them. Officers who felt undermined were, unsurprisingly, lesscommitted at work, experienced more physical health problems and were more likely to takeunauthorised breaks and be absent from work. Being undermined was a major source of stress, andwhen the underminer was also, at other times, supportive, recipients experienced even lower
commitment, had more health issues, and missed comparatively more work.
An explanation for this is that when a colleague is a consistently selfish or undermining, individuals
know what to expect, and can devise strategies for minimising interactions and avoiding collaboration.
But if that colleague takes in some situations and gives in others, it is harder to avoid the relationshipaltogether, Duffy et al., (2002) state “…it takes more emotional energy and coping resources to deal
with individuals who are inconsistent in their provision of support and undermining behaviors” (p.
337). Such resource expenditures, we argue, go beyond merely subtracting from one’s pool of capital,
but instead create on-going liabilities with one’s workplace social network that saps resources in theform of time, emotional energy, and cognitive load.
4. Distraction and other social demands (Path 4)
One potential cost to an individual with high capital comes from the proportionally greater number ofrequests from others in their social network for advice and information. They are the “thought leaders”
and “experts” and people turn to them for help (Oldroyd & Morris, 2012). For example, Oldroyd andMorris cite Grove (1983: 67), who describes the constant request for information and advice received
by managers as “the plague of managerial work.” Similarly, Perlow (1999) demonstrates that frequent
coworker interruptions experienced by high performing, visible software engineers ultimately led towhat she calls a “time famine”; they had too many information requests and could no longer properly
perform their jobs. The other source of social demand is from time wasters, chatters and distracters. In
a study of managerial attitudes to workplace friendships, 17 per cent of managers felt that these
relationships resulted in distraction from work and over half believed that they caused or contributed
to gossip (Berman, West, & Richter, 2002). It is possible that workplace designs that allow for
distracting and unwanted interpersonal interactions, such as ‘hot-desking’ and open plan offices, will
increase employee social liabilities. Maintaining interpersonal relationships in these contexts
potentially generates social process losses at the expense of job task achievement.
It is worth noting that Berman et al. (2002) differentiate between “close” friendships and “casual”
friendships at work. Casual friendships tend to require less maintenance and involve fewer distractions
than close or best friends, thus, they may provide a sounding board, promote teamwork, and help toaccomplish work-related tasks without the distraction or obligations to spend time that are associatedwith best friends (Berman et al., 2002). We propose that the very close friends in one’s social network,
though they may provide the greatest social capital, also contribute relatively more to an employee’ssocial liability because of the additional demands such friends can place on resources.

A two factor theory
Thus, in any given social network, there will be some relationships that build social capital, and otherrelationships that create a liability (or even relationships that may be beneficial but, at times, might
become a liability). We propose, therefore, that an individual will have some measureable amount of73

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 67-89
both capital and liability. Increasing the former while reducing the latter should improve individual
well-being. It is not a “zero sum” game; we do not suggest that social liability necessarily detracts
from social capital. Indeed, high levels of both would be extraordinarily resource consuming (in termsof managing both positive and negative relationships). Low levels of both would not help, but neither
would it necessarily hinder an employee’s organisational life, other than being excluded frompotentially valuable social networks (Putnam, 1995). Figure 2 shows our proposed matrix. Employees
can be placed within any of the four areas depending on the level of social capital and liability and theimplication of this is described below.
Figure 2: Proposed ESL / ESC matrix structure

1. Low Social Capital / High Social Liability
This is the “worst” scenario for an employee. They may be part of a dysfunctional work group or team,with no reciprocity and distrust (low social capital) as well as negative relational norms (such as nondisclosure, undermining, and conflict). Team members may be low status, unskilled and poorly
networked (i.e., be able to offer little in the way of useful connections or information). There may also
be some relatively enjoyable relationships that do little but distract from work (i.e., chatting, non-work
activities, and gossip). There may also be people in the network who dislike or are in competition with
the individual, and who engage in non-disclosure, favouritism, bullying or sabotage (high social
liability).
2. High Social Capital / High Social Liability
This scenario would potentially be very consuming in terms of emotion, effort and time. This person
may be part of a well-functioning work group or team, there would probably be reciprocity and trust
among some of the members (high social capital) and possibly some positive relational norms (suchas information sharing and cooperation). The network would include visible, high status, skilled and74

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 67-89
well networked individuals (i.e., “useful” connections). However, there may also be some relationshipsthat do little but distract from work (chatting, non-work activities, gossip) or that are valuable but“expensive” in terms of effort and time. There may also be people in the network who dislike one
another or are in competition, and who engage in non-disclosure, favouritism, bullying or sabotage.
3. Low Social Capital / Low Social Liability
Someone with this type of network would probably be part of a dysfunctional work group or team, or
alternatively would be quite socially isolated at work, perhaps in a virtual or nominal team with little
interaction or task interdependence. People would perhaps work independently of and isolated fromothers. There would be low reciprocity and distrust (low social capital) as well as negative relational
norms (such as non-disclosure, favouritism, bullying or sabotage). This may also describe loners inorganisations who actively withdraw from joining social networks; or who may be highly task focussed
and prefer to work alone. Team members, if any, may be low status, unskilled and poorly networked
and, though the team members do not actively work against one another, neither do they distract fromwork.
4. High Social Capital / Low Social Liability
This is the “best” scenario. This person will be part of a well-functioning work group or team. Members
would be trusting, and effort and interactions would be reciprocal. There would be positive relational
norms (such as information sharing and cooperation). Team members would probably be visible,
productive, high status, skilled and well networked, easily able to provide benefits to one another atwork and, perhaps, in a wider social context. The team members do not actively work against one
another, nor do they distract from work, interpersonal interaction is positive, useful and work-related.
In sum, we propose that high employee social liability is qualitatively different from “low social
capital”, and that being able to conceptualise and measure it within a workplace context will be usefulboth from an individual (working well-being) and organisational (organisational climate, productivity)
perspective.
In the section that follows, we examine the relations among employee social liability andorganisational issues including, cohesion, engagement, career success, organisational climate, wellbeing, and performance.

Antecedents to Employee Social Liability (ESL) in Organisations
The antecedents of ESL will originate from two sources, the individual and the organisation. We
propose that some people, as a result of their personality, social skills and/or work related behaviour
will go through life acquiring relatively more liabilities. These are perhaps those individuals that others
would describe as being less “likable”. In addition, there are organisational factors beyond
interpersonal interactions; the wider organisational context or climate will either support or supress
various behaviours of organisational members. There may be zero tolerance for the social demands ofoff-task communication, others may allow, or even encourage, competition between employees, andstill others encourage trusting and collaborative workplace behaviour. All will be likely to have an
impact on whether a particular employee will acquire liabilities as a result of their behaviour.

75

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 67-89
Failure to manage / maintain high quality relationships
The primary antecedent to the presence or acquisition of social liabilities is likely to be characteristics
in an individual that relate to skill in, and focus on, maintaining good and long lasting interpersonal
relationships – or, more precisely, a lack thereof. That is to say, characteristics related to having “lowquality” relationships in one’s social network.
Relationship quality has been measured in numerous ways by organisational researchers in the last 50
years (e.g., Carmeli, Brueller, & Dutton, 2009; Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Duchon, Green, &Taber, 1986; Sias, 2005; Wat & Shaffer, 2004). At a peer or collegial level is thought to be a productof variables, such as trust, support and self-disclosure (Kram & Isabella, 1985; Odden & Sias, 1997;
Sias, 2005; Sias & Cahill, 1998), at the supervisor / subordinate level, it is most commonly measured
in the context vertical dyad linkage (Dansereau et al., 1975; Duchon et al., 1986) and leader member
exchange (LMX) and is a function of reciprocal influence, extra contractual behaviour exchange,mutual trust, respect and liking, and a sense of common fate (Deluga & Perry, 1994; Dienesch & Liden,
1986; Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Kang
& Stewart, 2007; Schriesheim, Castro, & Cogliser, 1999). The three antecedents that we propose will
impact on the quality of work relationships are personality, emotional intelligence and deviant
workplace behaviours. Each is described below.
1. Personality
The Big Five personality dimensions (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness andemotional stability) predict how we operate within relationships, both in and out of the workplace.
Agreeable people have been found to be relatively more considerate, forgiving, nurturing, and tolerant,
while disagreeable people are more likely to be inconsiderate, vengeful, argumentative, anduncooperative (Colbert, Mount, Harter, Witt, & Barrick, 2004). Therefore it seems likely that
disagreeable individuals will be more likely to engage negatively with others in the workplace, exhibit
interpersonally deviant behaviour and, as a result, acquire social liabilities (Mount, Barrick, & Stewart,1998).
Conscientiousness, along with agreeableness, is thought to play a role in emotional regulation in bothinterpersonal and work settings (Larsen, 2000; Salovey & Mayer, 1990) and extraversion, andneuroticism have been found to influence the likelihood that individuals will experience negative
emotions, with those scoring as both introverted and high in neuroticism being more likely toexperience negative mood (Larsen, 2000; Larsen & Ketelaar, 1989; Larsen & Ketelaar, 1991).
The recent literature on maladaptive personality in both clinical (Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson,& Skodol, 2012) and workplace (Guenole, 2014) settings also informs our propositions here. Given
that maladaptive personality reflects the very extremes of normal-range personality constructs, it may
occur too infrequently to be of use in predicting ESL widely, nonetheless, it gives weight to our
proposition regarding the relationship between the Big Five and failure to create and maintain highquality relationships (Dilchert, Ones, & Krueger, 2014).
Proposition 1 and 2: Those with low emotional stability (negative affect), low extraversion(detachment), low agreeableness (antagonism), low conscientiousness (disinhibition), and highopenness (psychoticism) will be more likely to both engage in deviant behaviours (Path 5), and also to
fail in creating and maintaining high quality relationships (Path 6) (See Figure 1).

76

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 67-89
2. Emotional Intelligence
In the context of acquiring social liabilities, we are interested in the skills or characteristics of theindividual that are likely to influence the initiation, management and maintenance of high quality
relationships. Social and emotional competence are the most obvious antecedents to these abilities andthe theory of emotional intelligence proposed by Salovey and Mayer (1990) provides a framework to
examine these competencies. Emotional intelligence (as measured by the MEIS or the MSCEIT) has
been found to be related to increased pro-social behaviour and positive peer relationships (Mayer,
1998; Salovey, Mayer, Caruso, & Lopes, 2001), and to negatively predict poor relations with friends,
maladjustment and negative behaviour, particularly for males (Brackett, Mayer, & Warner, 2004).
Consequently, we expect to find emotional intelligence to the negatively related to effective
relationship creation and maintenance.
Proposition 3: Those with low emotional intelligence, particularly the factors associated with social
competence, will have more low quality relationships and/or negative relationships, fewer high quality
relationships and consequently relatively higher levels of social liabilities (Path 7).
3. “Bad” behaviours
Bad or deviant behaviour in the workplace has received a great deal of attention from scholars in recent
years (Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Griffin & Lopez, 2005; Lee & Allen, 2002; Robinson & Bennett,
1995). Deviant behaviour can be defined as “…voluntary behavior that violates significant
organizational norms and in so doing threatens the well-being of an organization, its members, orboth” (Robinson & Bennett, 1995; p. 556). It includes verbal abuse, such as being quarrelsome (Albert& Moskowitz, 2014; Moskowitz, 2010) and aggressive (Hershcovis & Barling, 2010; Neuman &Baron, 2005), highly politicised activity, such as favouritism and gossip, withholding work effort,
physical violence, bullying (Einarsen, 1999; Einarsen & Skogstad, 1996; Gardner et al., 2013), sexual
harassment and even sabotage (Griffin & O’Leary-Kelly, 2004). Deviant behaviours which impact on
the quality and quality of collegial relationships are termed interpersonal deviance whereas thosewhich are more directly harmful to the organisation, such as working on personal matters, stealingfrom the organisation or “slacking off” at work, are termed organisational deviance (Bennett &Robinson, 2000).
Thus, not all deviant behaviour is related to interpersonal interaction so, as well as having a profoundnegative impact on the quality of collegial relationships, it is reasonable to assume that individuals
engaging in organisational deviance would also acquire relatively more social liabilities in their
networks through the negative perceptions their colleagues would have of their behaviour (i.e., stealingfrom the organisation, dragging out work to get overtime or spending too much time day-dreaming)(Bennett & Robinson, 2000).
Proposition 4 and 5: “Bad” behaviour will be related to deficits in creating and maintaining highquality relationships (Path 8) and there is also a proposed direct link from bad behaviour to employeesocial liabilities (Path 9).
Taken together (propositions 1-5) predict a relationship between the individual level factors andrelationship quality / maintenance. As stated earlier, we propose that this higher level construct will
be a key predictor of ESL.
Proposition 6: The failure to manage / maintain high quality relationships will predict whether or not
employees acquire social liabilities at work (Path 10)77New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 67-89

Organisational climate
Organisational climate can be defined as the shared perceptions and meaning attached to policy,
practice and procedures, as well as the specific organisational behaviours that are rewarded, supported
and expected (Schneider, Ehrhart, & Macey, 2013). Alternatively, it can be conceptualised as thedegree of trust, morale, conflict, equity, leader credibility, resistance to change, and scapegoating(Burton, Lauridsen, & Obel, 2004). We propose a two-way, interactive relationship between employeesocial liabilities and organisational climate, whereby a poor organisational climate will create anenvironment conducive to the existence of (or at least one tolerant of) negative relationships, bullies
and deviant behaviours (Vartia, 1996). In addition, it is likely that a workplace where people areworking against one another and acting in ways detrimental to their colleagues’ careers and well-being(i.e. social liabilities) will be one that would be characterised as having a negative climate.
Proposition 7: Increased ESL in a workplace will have an impact on the organisational climate in an
organisation, in addition, more negative or toxic climates will foster relatively more ESLs for
employees (Path 11).

Consequences of Employee Social Liability
1. Well-being
Employee well-being is a multi-dimensional construct that goes well beyond job satisfaction to include
notions, such as job-induced stress, fatigue, work-life conflict, and happiness (Boxall & Macky, 2014).
Individual well-being is, in part, a function of the quality of the relationships an employee has withother people at work and in the wider community, influenced by the degree of trust, reciprocity, social
support and cooperation experienced in those relationships (Grant, Christianson, & Price, 2007).
Drawing on the Job Demands-Resources Model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Bakker, Demerouti, deBoer, & Schaufeli, 2003; Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001), we propose that
individuals with higher levels of social liabilities in their social network will be faced with increased
demands on their resources in order to manage these relationships, thereby resulting in higher job stressand reduced satisfaction with the job. The more effort required to deal with these negative
relationships, the greater the strain experienced (Hakanen, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2006). Adding to this,relationship difficulties at work could also negatively spill-over into non-work life resulting in worklife conflict (Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005; Halbesleben, Harvey, & Bolino,2009).
Proposition 8: Increased Employee Social Liabilities will decrease worker well-being at work (Path12) (see Figure 1).
2. Work Engagement
The concept of engagement is relatively new and replete with conflicting definitions. At a generallevel, engaged employees invest physical, emotional and cognitive energy in their work, arepsychologically present and absorbed in their work, are cognitively focused, and emotionallyconnected with others in the delivery of their tasks (Kahn, 1990, 1992). Extending this, we draw on
Schaufeli and Salanova’s (2011) differentiation between work and employee engagement in that theformer deals with the relationship people have with their work, rather than with their occupation, role78

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 67-89
or organisation. Kahn (1990) theorised that a direct psychological precondition of engagement is thatof safety, with perceptions of social support and relationships primary influences of perceived safety.
According to Kahn (1990), supportive managers and interpersonal relationships based on trust lead toexperiences of psychological safety with others. On this basis, we posit that employees with a highlevel of social liability in their workplace social network are unlikely to also express high levels of
engagement in their work. More, specifically, there is evidence that resources are important drivers of
employee work engagement and that this relationship is reciprocal (Bakker, Demerouti, &Xanthopoulou, 2012). We, therefore, draw on the Job Demands-Resources Model to suggest a
motivational process, whereby poor low-quality workplace relationships characterised by distrust, task
distractions and low cooperation result in higher demands on resources to cope, leading todisengagement with work. At its extreme, social liabilities could, therefore, be manifested in increased
emotional exhaustion and cynicism towards others. Furthermore, conservation of resources (COR)
theory (Hobfoll, 2001) proposes that we strive to protect and accumulate resources. Employees withmore resources than that needed to meet the demands of the job are more likely to be engaged
employees (Halbesleben, 2011). We, therefore, argue that social liability demands decrease theavailable resources employees need to achieve their work tasks and goals, thereby reducing work
engagement.
Proposition 9: Increased Employee Social Liabilities will decrease levels of employee engagement(Path 13).
3. Career success
It is widely accepted that social capital influences career success (Burt, 1992; Gabbay & Zuckerman,
1998) and the importance of using one’s social networks in the achievement of career goals features
regularly in both academic and practitioner literature. For example, Seibert, Kraimer, and Liden(2001) found that having the increased social resources that social capital provides enhances anindividual’s career through access to information, access to resources and career sponsorship. Lin and
Dumin (1986) also established a strong link between social capital and career success. They found thataccess to desirable, high status occupations was provided by both having a strong social position (e.g.,coming from a “good” family) and through social ties (friends and acquaintances).
We propose that social liabilities would also have an impact of career success, albeit a negative one.
Because it is the antithesis of social capital, we propose that impact on one’s career of having social
liabilities would be far greater than that of simply having “low social capital”. For example, having
low status, unskilled, or very few members in your network would offer few social resources so would
be unlikely to aid in your career progress, but neither would it necessarily be harmful. On the other
hand, having someone who dislikes or does not respect you, and is willing to put effort into activities,
such as negative rumour and gossip, sabotage and deliberate obstruction could actually do greatdamage your career.
Imagine if you will, a situation where a psychologist, previously working in the hospital system goesfor a job within a private practice. It turns out that someone on the interview panel worked with her 10
years ago, supervising her as a new graduate. If this senior psychologist had a good experience of thesupervisory experience, and respected the hard work and intellect of the candidate, she would likely
recommend her to the rest of the panel before the interview even took place. The candidate would,
almost without a doubt, be shortlisted for the position. On the other hand, if the panel instead heardthat the candidate was slightly neurotic, a bit lazy, rude, and unsympathetic to clients, she would
perhaps not even be offered an interview, and would have no chance to redeem herself or to show how
she had changed in the intervening decade.
79

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 67-89

The above illustrates the power of social capital and social liabilities, respectively. On the other hand,
having no social capital in this situation would perhaps be reflected by the case of an international
candidate interviewing for the same job; a candidate judged solely by her CV and the interview. She
would not have the advantage of a supporter on the panel (social capital), but neither would she be
haunted and ultimately punished by a year of “bad behaviour” (Bennett & Robinson, 2000) as a new
graduate (social liability). These examples illustrate, once again, the importance of conceptualisingsocial liability as a phenomena quite separate from simply having low social capital.
Proposition 10: Increased Employee Social Liabilities will negatively impact long term career success(Path 14).
4. Group/ team cohesion
We propose that a negative relationship would exist between increased social liabilities and teamcohesion, because many of the accepted antecedents to cohesion are less likely to take place in anenvironment characterised by negative social interactions.
Envy, for example, is both likely to elicit the acquisition of social liabilities, and has been found to
reduce cohesion (Duffy & Shaw, 2000). We propose that the envy of others may mean that anindividual will acquire more social liabilities. This is because envy includes the perception that aperson lacks another’s superior achievement or belongings and, further, they either desire it or(importantly) they wish the other lacked it (Duffy & Shaw, 2000), necessitating ill feeling towards theenvied other. According to Vecchio (1995), who adapted social psychology findings to a work setting,the potential reactions to envy at work may include sabotage, back-stabbing, harassment or ostracismof the rival, and bolstering one’s own self-image. Thus envy will logically create saboteurs, enemies
and “haters”, individuals working against one another, fitting well with our conceptualisation of ESL.
In addition, numerous studies with a focus on cohesion outline indicators of cohesion that areconceptually opposite to ESL. For example, a feeling of identification and attraction to the group(Johnson & Johnson, 1991), group members getting along and helping each other (Koys & DeCotiis,1991), and the presence of friendliness, helpfulness and trust (Boxx, Odom, & Dunn, 1991).
Proposition 11: Increased Employee Social Liabilities will decrease cohesion in the workplace (Path15).
5. Performance
Extending the above propositions regarding the proposed impact of ESL on well-being, engagement,
career success, and cohesion, we anticipate that these will mediate both team and individual
performance. In turn, team and individual performance influence organisational outcomes (see Figure1).
Proposition 12: Increased Employee Social Liabilities will have a negative impact on performance
via reduced employee wellbeing, lower work engagement and low cohesion (path 16).

80

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 67-89

Conclusions
The research reviewed suggests that the acquisition of social liabilities could have profound negativeand long lasting effects on individuals in several ways, including their well-being, performance and,ultimately, career success. Social liabilities can cause harm to individuals through exposure to negative
acts, it will be likely to reduce collegiality through the acquisition of distrusting and uncooperative
relationships, and the social costs inherent in distraction and social demands will reduce productivity
and achievement in a variety of ways. A long term impact of ESL is the harm to the careers of those
who acquire it; even if they change jobs or move to a different organisation. The “global village” andthe rise of social networking mean that the ease with which people can be contacted and researchedallows bad behaviour witnessed, and enemies acquired, to haunt an individual for decades after an
event.
The propositions suggested in this paper are eminently testable and, therefore, provide future research
directions towards understanding the effects of ESL at both the individual and organisational level.
Before this can take place, however, a valid and reliable measure of ESL needs to be devised. A variety
of measures of the four underlying components (social demand, negative acts, lack of reciprocity anddistrust) exist and these must to be researched, reviewed and tested for their predictive power as partsof the higher level construct, ESL. The nomological network of this new construct needs to be tested
and the resulting scale needs to be validated. This will be the aim of the authors moving forward withthis project.
At the individual level, an awareness of the potentially destructive impact that social liabilities bringis of great importance. Most white collar workers and business owners are cognisant of social capital,
if not by name, then by meaning. They know that creating relationship networks, knowing “useful”
people, and being owed favours will help them, both in their daily work and in their long-term career.
At the supervisory / management level, it is important that there is an awareness of the antecedents
and potential outcomes of this phenomenon and to be aware of the variety of contextual and personal
factors that engender a network filled with liabilities and how the damaging impacts of social liabilities
might be managed.

References
Adams, J.S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances in experimentalsocial psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). New York: Academic Press.
Adler, P.S., & Kwon, S.W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy ofManagement Review, 27(1), 17-40. doi:10.2307/4134367
Albert, L.S., & Moskowitz, D.S. (2014). Quarrelsomeness in the workplace: An exploration of theinterpersonal construct within the organizational context. Organizational Psychology Review, 4(1),27-48. doi: 10.1177/2041386613492786
Andersson, L.M., & Pearson, C.M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in theworkplace. The Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452-471. doi:10.5465/AMR.1999.2202131
Andrews, R. (2010). Organizational social capital, structure and performance. Human Relations,
63(5), 583-608. doi:10.1177/0018726709342931
81

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 67-89
Appelbaum, S.H., Iaconi, G.D., & Matousek, A. (2007). Positive and negative deviant workplace
behaviors:
Causes,
impacts,andsolutions. Corporate
governance,
7,586-598.
doi:10.1108/14720700710827176
Arnold, K.A., Turner, N., Barling, J., Kelloway, E.K., & McKee, M.C. (2007). Transformational
leadership and psychological well-being: The mediating role of meaningful work. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 12(3), 193-203. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.193
Bakker, A.B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development
International, 13, 209-223.
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., de Boer, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2003). Job demands and job resources
as predictors of absence duration and frequency. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 341-356.
Bakker, A.B, Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2012). How do engaged employees stayengaged? Ciencia & Trabajo, 14(special issue), 15-21.
Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B., Demerouti, E., Janssen, P.M.P., Van der Hulst, R., & Brouwer, J.
(2000). Using equity theory to examine the difference between burnout and depression Anxiety Stress
Coping, 13, 247–268. doi:10.1080/10615800008549265

Behtoui, A., & Neergaard, A. (2012). Social capital, status and income attainment in theworkplace. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 32(1), 42-55.
doi:10.1108/01443331211201752
Bennett, R.J., & Robinson, S.L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 85, 349-360. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.349
Berman, E.M., West, J.P., & Richter, M.N. (2002). Workplace relations: Friendship patterns andconsequences (according to managers). Public Administration Review, 62(2), 217-230.
doi:10.1111/0033-3352.00172
Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Bolino, M.C., Turnley, W.H., & Bloodgood, J.M. (2002). Citizenship behavior and the creation ofsocial capital in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 27(4), 505-522.
doi:10.2307/4134400
Bourdieu, P. (1986). Forms of Capital. In J.G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research forthe sociology of education (pp. 241-260). Westport: Greenwood Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago, IL: Chicago
University Press.
Boxall, P. & Macky, K. (2014) High-involvement work processes, work intensification and employee
well-being. Work, Employment & Society, 28(6), 963-984
Boxx, W.R., Odom, R.Y., & Dunn, M.G. (1991). Organizational values and value congruency andtheir impact on satisfaction, commitment, and cohesion. Public Personnel Management, 20, 195-205.
82

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 67-89

Brackett, M.A., Mayer, J.D., & Warner, R.M. (2004). Emotional intelligence and its relation to
everyday behaviour. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1387-1402.
Burt, R.S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Burt, R.S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 22,345-423.
Burton, R.M., Lauridsen, J., & Obel, B. (2004). The impact of organizational climate and strategic fit
on firm performance. Human Resource Management, 43(1), 67-82.
Carmeli, A., Brueller, D., & Dutton, J.E. (2009). Learning behaviours in the workplace: The role ofhigh-quality interpersonal relationships and psychological safety. Systems Research and Behavioral
Science, 26, 81-98. doi:10.1002/sres.932
Carr, J.C., Cole, M.S., Ring, J.K., & Blettner, D.P. (2011). A measure of internal social capital amongfamily firms. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 35(6), 1207-1227. doi:10.1111/j.15406520.2011.00499.x
Chiaburu, D.S., & Harrison, D.A. (2008). Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and metaanalysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93(5), 1082-1103. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1082
Colbert, A.E., Mount, M.K., Harter, J.K., Witt, L.A., & Barrick, M.R. (2004). Interactive effects ofpersonality and perceptions of the work situation on workplace deviance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89(4), 599-609. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.599
Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology,
94(Suppl), S95-S120. doi:jstor.org/stable/2780243
Coleman, J.S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press.
Cunningham, J.B., & MacGregor, J. (2000). Trust and the design of work: Complementary constructs
insatisfaction
andperformance. Human
Relations,53(12),
1575-1591.
doi:10.1177/00187267005312003
Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W.J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within
formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46-78.
Deluga, R.J., & Perry, J.T. (1994). The role of subordinate performance and ingratiation in leadermember exchanges. Group & Organization Studies, 19(1), 67-86.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2001). The job demands - resources
model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499- 512.
Deutsch, M. (1960). The effect of motivational orientation upon trust and suspicion. Human Relations,13, 123-139. doi:10.1177/001872676001300202
83

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 67-89

Dienesch, R.M., & Liden, R.C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique andfurther development. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 618-634.
Dilchert, S., Ones, D.S., & Krueger, R.F. (2014). Maladaptive personality constructs, measures, andwork behaviors. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 7(1), 98-110. doi:10.1111/iops.12115
Duchon, D., Green, S.G., & Taber, T.D. (1986). Vertical dyad linkage: A longitudinal assessment ofantecedents, measures, and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(1), 56-60.
Duffy, M.K., Ganster, D.C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the workplace. The Academyof Management Journal, 45(2), 331-351. doi:10.2307/3069350
Duffy, M.K., Scott, K.L., Shaw, J.D., Tepper, B.J., & Aquino, K. (2012). A social context model ofenvy and social undermining. Academy of Management Journal, 55(3), 643-666.
doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.04.005
Duffy, M.K., & Shaw, J.D. (2000). The salieri syndrome: Consequences of envy in groups. Small
Group Research, 31(3), 3-23. doi:10.1177/104649640003100101
Eby, L.T., Casper, W.J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A. (2005). Work and family research
in IO/OB: content analysis and review of the literature (1980-2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior,
66, 124-197.
Einarsen, S. (1999). The nature and causes of bullying at work. International Journal of Manpower,
20(1/2), 16-27. doi:10.1108/01437729910268588
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., & Notelaers, G. (2009). Measuring exposure to bullying and harassment atwork: Validity, factor structure and psychometric properties of the Negative Acts QuestionnaireRevised. Work and stress, 23(1), 24-44. doi:10.1080/02678370902815673
Einarsen, S., & Skogstad, A. (1996). Bullying at work: Epidemiological findings in public and privateorganizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 185-201.
doi:10.1080/13594329608414854
Emerson, R. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27, 31-41.
Emerson, R. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335-362.
doi:10.1146/annurev.so.02.080176.002003
Emerson, R. (1987). Toward a theory of value in social exchange. In K. S. Cook (Ed.), Social
Exchange Theory (pp. 11-58). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Fredrickson, B., & Losada, M. (2005). Positive Affect and the Complex Dynamics of Human
Flourishing. American Psychologist, 60(7), 678-686. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.7.678
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust. New York: Free Press.
Gabbay, S.M., & Zuckerman, E.W. (1998). Social capital and opportunity in corporate R&D: The
contingent effect of contact density on mobility expectations. Social Science Research, 27, 189-217.
84

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 67-89

Gardner, D., O’Driscoll, M.P., Bentley, T., Catley, B., Cooper-Thomas, H.D., & Trenberth, L. (2013).
When workplaces go sour: Bullying at work. In R.L. Morrison & H.D. Cooper-Thomas(Eds.), Relationships in organizations: A work psychology perspective (pp.218-238). London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Gerstner, C.R., & Day, D.V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory:
Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827-844.
Glaeser, E.L., Laibson, D., & Sacerdote, B. (2002). An economic approach to social capital. The
Economic Journal, 112(483), F437-F458.
Gottlieb, B. H., & Wagner, F. (1991). Stress and support in close relationships. In J. Eckenrode(Ed.), The social context of coping (pp. 165-188). New York: Plenum Press.
Govier, T. (1994). Is it a jungle out there? Trust, distrust, and the construction of social
reality. Dialogue, 33, 237-252.
Graen, G.B., Novak, M.A., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader-member exchange andjob design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 30, 109-131.
Graen, G.B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development ofleader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multidomain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247.
Grant, A., Christianson, M., & Price, R. (2007). Happiness, health, or relationships? Managerial
practices and employee wellbeing tradeoffs. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 51-63.
Griffin, R. W., & Lopez, Y. P. (2005). “Bad Behavior” in organizations: A review and typology for
future research. Journal of Management, 31(6), 988-1005. doi:10.1177/0149206305279942
Griffin, R.W., & O’Leary-Kelly, A.M. (2004). The dark side of organizational behavior. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Guenole, N. (2014). Maladaptive personality at work: Exploring the darkness. Industrial andOrganizational Psychology, 7, 85-97. doi:10.1111/iops.12114
Hakanen, J.J., Bakker, A.B., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among
teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 495-513.
Halbesleben, J.R.B. (2011). The consequences of engagement: The good, the bad, and theugly. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(1), 68-73.
Halbesleben, J.R.B., Harvey, J., & Bolino, M.C. (2009). Too engaged? A conservation of resources
view of the relationship between work engagement and work interference with family. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 94(6), 1452-1465.

85

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 67-89
Hershcovis, M. S., & Barling, J. (2010). Towards a multi-foci approach to workplace aggression: A
meta-analytic review of outcomes from different perpetrators. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
31, 24-44. doi:10.1002/job.621
Hobfoll, S.E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested self in the stress process:
Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 337370. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00062
Hutton, S.A. (2006). Workplace incivility: State of the science. The Journal of Nursing Administration,
36(1), 22-27.
Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, F.P. (1991). Joining together: Group theory and group skills. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kahn, W.A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement atwork. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724.
Kahn, W.A. (1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations, 45, 321-349.
Kang, D., & Stewart, J. (2007). Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership and
HRD. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 28(6), 531-551.
Kawachi, I. (1999). Social capital and community effects on population and individual health. Annalsof the New York Academy of Sciences, 896, 120-130.
Keyes, C.L., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C.D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter of
two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 1007-1022. doi:10.1037/00223514.82.6.1007
Kouvonen, A., Kivimäki, M., Vahtera, J., Oksanen, T., Elovainio, M., Cox, T., . . . Wilkinson, R. G.
(2006). Psychometric evaluation of a short measure of social capital at work. BMC Public Health, 6,251. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-6-251
Koys, D., & DeCotiis, T. (1991). Inductive measures of psychological climate. Human Relations, 44,
265-285.
Kram, K., & Isabella, L. (1985). Mentoring alternatives: The role of peer relationships in careerdevelopment. Academy of Management Journal, 28(1), 110-132.
Kramer, R.M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: emerging perspectives, enduring
questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569-598. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.569
Krueger, R., Derringer, J., Markon, K.E., Watson, D., & Skodol, A.E. (2012). Initial construction of amaladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5. Psychological medicine, 42(9), 18791890. doi:10.1017/S0033291711002674

86

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 67-89
Labianca, G., & Brass, D.J. (2006). Exploring the social ledger: Negative relationships and negative
asymmetry in social networks in organisations. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 596-614.
doi:10.5465/AMR.2006.21318920
Larsen, R.J. (2000). Toward a science of mood regulation. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 129-141.
doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1103_01
Larsen, R.J., & Ketelaar, T. (1989). Extraversion, neuroticism and susceptibility to positive andnegative mood induction procedures. Personality and Individual Diﬀerences, 10, 1221-1228.
doi:10.1016/0191-8869(89)90233-X
Larsen, R.J., & Ketelaar, T. (1991). Personality and susceptibility to positive and negative emotional
states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology(61), 132-140. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.1.132
Lazarova, M., & Taylor, S. (2009). Boundaryless careers, social capital, and knowledge management:
Implications for organizational performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(1), 119-139.
doi:10.1002/job.545
Leana, C.R., & VanBuren, H.J. (1999). Organizational Social Capital and Employment Practices. The
Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 538-555.
Lee, K., & Allen, N.J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The roleof affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131-142. doi:10.1037/00219010.87.1.131
Lin, N., & Dumin, M. (1986). Access to occupations through social ties. Social Networks, 8, 365-385.
McDonald, M., & O’Callaghan, J. (2008). Positive Psychology: A Foucauldian Critique. The
Humanistic Psychologist, 36(2), 127-142. doi:10.1080/08873260802111119
Maurer, I., Bartsch, V., & Ebers, M. (2011). The Value of Intra-organizational Social Capital: How it
Fosters Knowledge Transfer, Innovation Performance, and Growth. Organization Studies, 32(2), 157185. doi:10.1177/0170840610394301
Mayer, J.D. (1998). A systems framework for the ﬁeld of personality. Psychological Inquiry, 9, 118144. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0902_10
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., & Schoorman, F.D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational
trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734.
Moskowitz, D. S. (2010). Quarrelsomeness in daily life. Journal of Personality, 78(1), 39-66.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00608.x
Mount, M.K., Barrick, M.R., & Stewart, G.L. (1998). Five-factor model of personality andperformance in jobs involving interpersonal interactions. Human Performance, 11, 145-165.
doi:10.1080/08959285.1998.9668029
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266. doi:10.2307/259373

87

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 67-89
Neuman, J.H., & Baron, R.A. (2005). Aggression in the workplace: A social-psychologicalperspective. In S. Fox & P.E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations ofactors and targets (pp. 13-40). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Odden, C.M., & Sias, P.M. (1997). Peer communication relationships, psychological climate, andgender. Communication Quarterly, 45, 153-166.
Oldroyd, J.B., & Morris, S.S. (2012). Catching falling stars: A human resource response to social
capital’s detrimental effect of information overload on star employees. Academy of Management
Review, 37(3), 396-418. doi:doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0403
Pearson, C.M., Anderson, L.M., & Wegner, J.W. (2001). When workers flout convention: A study ofworkplace incivility. Human Relations, 54, 1387-1419. doi:10.1177/00187267015411001
Perlow, L. A. (1999). The time famine: Toward a sociology of work time. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 44(1), 57-81. doi:10.2307/2667031
Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review ofSociology, 24, 1-24. doi:DOI: 10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.1
Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6, 6578.
Roberts, L. (2006). Shifting the lens of organizational life: The added value of positive
scholarship. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 292-305. doi:10.5465/AMR.2006.20208681
Robinson, S.L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 41, 574-599.
Robinson, S.L., & Bennett, R.J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A
multidimensional scaling study. The Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555-572.
doi:10.2307/256693
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J.D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality,9(3), 185-211. doi:10.2190/DUGG-P24E-52WK-6CDG
Salovey, P., Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D., & Lopes, P.N. (2001). Measuring emotional intelligence as a setof mental abilities with the MSCEIT. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Handbook of positive
psychology assessment (pp.251-265) Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Schaufeli, W., & Salanova, M. (2011). Work engagement: On how to better catch a slippery
concept. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(1), 39-46.
Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M.G., & Macey, W.H. (2013). Organizational climate and culture. Annual
Review of Psychology, 64, 361-388.
Schriesheim, C.A., Castro, S.L., & Cogliser, C.C. (1999). Leader-member exchange (LMX) research:
A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices. The Leadership
Quarterly, 10(1), 63-113.

88

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 67-89
Seibert, S.E., Kraimer, M.L., & Liden, R.C. (2001). A social capital theory of career success. Academyof Management Journal, 44(2), 219-237. doi:10.2307/3069452
Shortt, S.E.D. (2004). Making sense of social capital, health and policy. Health Policy, 70, 11-22.
Sias, P.M. (2005). Workplace relationship quality and employee information
experiences. Communication Studies, 56(4), 375-395. doi:10.1080/10510970500319450
Sias, P.M., & Cahill, D.J. (1998). From coworkers to friends: The development of peer friendships in
the workplace. Western Journal of Communication, 62(3), 273-299.
Sobel, J. (2002). Can We Trust Social Capital? Journal of Economic Literature, 40(1), 139-154.
Suzuki, E., Takao, S., Subramanian, S. V., Komatsu, H., Doi, H., & Kawachi, I. (2010). Does low
workplace social capital have detrimental effect on workers’ health? Social Science & Medicine, 70(9),1367-1372. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.01.014
Uchino, B.N., Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T.W., & Bloor, L. (2004). Heterogeneity in social networks: A
comparison of different models linking relationships to psychological outcomes. Journal of Social andClinical Psychology, 23(2), 123-139. doi:10.1521/jscp.23.2.123.31014
Uchino, B.N., Holt-Lunstad, J., Uno, D., & Flinders, J.B. (2001). Heterogeneity in the social networksof young and older adults: Prediction of mental health and cardiovascular reactivity during acutestress. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 24(4). doi:10.1023/A:1010634902498
Vartia, M. (1996). The sources of bullying-psychological work environment and organizational
climate. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 203-214.
doi:10.1080/13594329608414855
Vecchio, R.P. (1995). It’s not easy being green: Jealousy and envy in the workplace. Research in
Personnel and Human Resources Management, 13, 201-244.
Wat, D., & Shaffer, M.A. (2004). Equity and relationship quality influences on organizational
citizenship behaviors. The mediating role of trust in the supervisor and empowerment. Personnel
Review, 34(4), 406-422. doi:10.1108/00483480510599752
Zahra, S. A. (2010). Harvesting family firms’ organizational social capital: A relational
perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 47(2), 345-366. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00894.x

89New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 90-102‘Re-validating Contracting’ as an Approach to Forming Lasting
Employment Relationships in Small Businesses
RUPERT TIPPLES*
Abstract
The use of the psychological contract concept in management teaching has not been developed
well according to Conway and Briner (2005), who suggest that this is because of the implicit
nature of the concept and the vast array of its potential components. This paper addresses thequestion of how a psychological contract perspective makes sense of employment relations
practices and provides key guidelines for managers on how they should be conducted in a worldof individual employment relationships. In 1996, the ‘Contracting’ process (Tipples, 1996)
was presented as the key to employment relations as it sought to achieve mutually balanced
psychological contracts between willing employers and willing employees. This paper showsthat contracting continues as a valid and simple strategy for developing open, trusting, andproductive employment relationships today across all cultures. It has been reinforced by more
recent research.

Introduction
In July 2014, the focus of the 3rd Small Group Psychological Contract Conference in Toronto
was ‘Mobilizing PC Knowledge’. Since reading Jay Lorsch’s (1979) paper ‘On making
behavioural science more useful’, I had set out to use psychological contract (PC) as afoundational concept of my employment relations teaching because, as Kurt Lewin (1951: 169)
said: “There is nothing so practical as a good theory”. After more than 50 years of research,
the psychological contract seems to bridge well the rigour-relevance gap described by
Hodgkinson and Rousseau (2009). These biennial meetings (Tilburg, 2010, Canberra 2012,
Toronto 2014) have more than demonstrated that, advancing the cases made previously by
Latornell (2007) and DelCampo (2007).
One of the key barriers to the development and acceptance of the psychological contract
construct has been its psychological contract name. An ‘old school’ Australian Industrial
Relations academic had once described the term to me as “…too touchy, feely…”, while
Charles Handy (1990: 35) used the term “secret contract”, but most have preferred to stick withterm “psychological contract”. One helpful development has been the shift in focus toemployment relations “deals” (Herriot & Pemberton, 1995; Wellin, 2007), which was taken up
and featured further in The Future of HR Programmes of the UK’s The Work Foundation(Sullivan, Wong, Adusumilli, Albert, Blazey, Hugget & Parker, 2009; Wong, Blazey, Sullivan,
Zoltoukhova, Albert & Reid, 2010). The “deal” terminology derives form Peter Herriot andCarole Pemberton’s 1995 book New Deals – The revolution in managerial careers, which was
being written at the same time as the author’s sabbatical at Griffith University in 1994, when
the background research for my original contracting approach was developed. That is a
simpler, less intimidating, and more comprehensive title for the typical small-medium*

Honorary Associate Professor of Employment Relations, Lincoln University

90

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 90-102

enterprises (SME) employer, although authors do not completely agree on the degree of overlapof the two titles. It also addresses the charge of employment relations becoming too‘psychologised’ and losing contact with the real world of work and employment (Godard,2014).
This paper addresses the question of how did and does ‘Contracting’1 operate to form lasting
employment relationships for SMEs. Is the approach developed in New Zealand agriculture in
the 1990s still appropriate for SMEs without HR personnel in 2014? In 1996, the ‘Contracting’process (Tipples, 1996) was presented as the key to employment relations for small employers
as it sought to achieve mutually balanced psychological contracts between willing employers
and willing employees, which would promote staff longevity, improved job satisfaction andproductivity, while reducing staff turnover (Kotter, 1973). This paper shows that contracting
continues as a valid and simple strategy for developing open, trusting, and productive
employment relationships.
The question is worth examining further because short periods of employment and staff
turnover are costly for small employers, much more than generally realised (e.g. Nettle,
Semmelroth, Ford, Zheng & Ullah, 2011; Billikopf, 2014), and they involve substantial
incidental costs, for example the training of new staff and loss of valuable management time.
Managers of SMEs have multiple roles (Mintzberg, 1973), but do not want to outsource therecruitment/selection/induction of staff because they are their choice for their business. Yet,they cannot afford the time for continual training and development of new staff when they needto devote their energy to managing their business. This has been highlighted recently byempirical research findings: (1) that the employment of migrant staff and less consequent staff
turnover has led to improvements in staff management and business organisation because
managers are not so busy finding new New Zealand staff that they actually have time to think
about what they are doing, and correspondingly manage better (Tipples & Bewsell, 2010); and(2) because seasonal migratory workers returning under New Zealand’s Recognised Seasonal
Employer Scheme do not need as much retraining and help train new inexperienced migrant
workers (Yuan, Cain & Spoonley, 2014; Tipples & Rawlinson, 2014)
The original ‘Contracting’ approach was developed from searching the empirical literature up
to 1994 and citing the relevant supporting pieces of work for each of the four suggested stagesof making new jobs – Pre-creation, Creation, Maintenance, and Conclusion – whether from theemployer’s or employee’s view of the process (see Table 1, Tipples, 1996). That was
reinforced in a meeting with Peter Herriot (Personal Communication, Sundridge Park
Management Centre, November 25, 1994), one of the early UK supporters and users of thepsychological contract. Then evidence for ‘re-validation’ has been drawn from certain key
publications, meta-studies and ongoing research. While in 1994, it was possible to read mostof the key empirical studies, by 2014, that had become impossible with the exponential growthin psychological contract research and publications (Tipples & Verry, 2007; Tipples, 20122).
The main evidence for re-validation is provided by ‘Psychological Contract Theory 2.0’(Montes, Rousseau & Tomprou, 2012; Rousseau, Montes & Tomprou, 2013, 2014), which alsouses a four stage process to explicate the development of employment relationships from a
psychological contract perspective. This is achieved by comparing and contrasting the two
four stage processes and highlighting similarities and differences. It is argued that PCT 2.0
and other recent research reinforces or develops the earlier findings, but does not show any
critical differences to how it is proposed an SME employer without HR support should address
their staffing issues.
91New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 90-102

Table 1: Phases in psychological contract formation - actions to achieve effective
employment relationships (Tipples, 1996, 2005)
Processstage
1. Pre-creation

2. Creation

3.
Maintenance4. Conclusionof jobSME employers

SME employees

Establishing a caring image to encourage
positive beliefs about the boss as
employer.
At an individual level, plenty of accurate
information about the job should be
provided; questions answered; work
visits permitted; contact with current
employees encouraged etc.
Being careful to avoid confusion incontract terms and how they areperceivedbymaintaining
close
coordination between the boss and otherstaff selectors. Minimising the use of
external agents by ensuring the boss or
key managers are actually involved in thecontracting process. At an individuallevel using realistic job descriptions(RJDs), realistic recruitment (RR) andrealistic orientation programmes for new
employee stress (ROPES); and permitting
genuine negotiation as part of the twoway process of contract formation.
Maintaining open communication with
employees about future changes, thefirm’s organisational environment etc.
Being careful to avoid managerial actions
which can lead to adverse changes in
employees’ perceptions of the boss as atrustworthy and ‘good’ employer; andany form of contract violation. Providing
regular feedback as part of on-going
performance appraisals, leading toregular re-negotiation of employment
contracts.
Being seen to be fair and just in
terminations in terms of following “dueprocess”. Unfair procedures andcompensation send deleterious messages
to survivors of terminations, which may
increase survivors’ turnover and makefuture recruitment more difficult.

Self-discovery: What theindividual wants; what
they can offer the firm;
and what their labour
market value is.

Actively inform the bossor manager what theywant and can offer; anddiscover what they want
and can offer. Negotiatewith firm representatives.

Monitor changes in thebusiness and their own
needs and wants. Then
decide whether thesemerit renegotiation of thecontracts, and if so,
renegotiate.

Renegotiate satisfactory
new contracts, or exit forother employment or
retirement92New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 90-102

Kotter (1973) had highlighted the need to achieve more matches in expectations through morethinking, discussion and understanding of their mutual expectations between the parties to a
psychological contract, as a way of improving job satisfaction, job longevity and work
productivity. It was that research and that of his mentor, Edgar Schein (e.g. Organisational
Psychology, 1965, 1970, 1980) that profoundly influenced my personnel management teachingas I sought to implement ‘evidence-based teaching’ before it became fashionable (Rousseau,
2006; Guest, 2007; Rousseau & Barends, 2011) when I commenced lecturing in early 1978.
My aim was to teach students to achieve good psychological contracts through balanced
expectations between prospective employers and employees when setting up new employment
relationships. Then, I had many students who were going to become employers in microbusinesses. Psychological contract provided them with a useful organising construct forestablishing new employment relationships without specialist HR advice. That opinion stillholds for all forms of SMEs, which do not have specialist HR personnel, but equally too for
those that do (e.g. McPhail, Jerrard & Southcombe, 2015).
That policy was based on what later became called a policy of ‘Realistic Recruitment’(Wanous, 1992; Wanous, Poland, Premack & Davis, 1992; Tipples, 1996). It seemed
intuitively right to me with my limited management and teaching experience. I did not concern
myself to find other supporting research for this position at that time. The strategy wasdemonstrated empirically for New Zealand dairy farming (Tipples, Hoogeveen & Gould,
2000). More generally, research backing was convincingly provided by Bauer, Bodner,
Erdogan, Truxillo & Tucker (2007), Wellin (2007), and Baur, Buckley, Bagdasarov &Dharmasiri (2014). Tomprou and Nikolau (2011) highlighted the role of psychologicalcontract on organisational entry and concluded that it would assist career management, asubject previously highlighted by Herriot (1992a: 357). They add: “…understanding how thepsychological contract is created may assist practitioners to comprehend employment
relationships better and manage them accordingly.” – the basis of my 1996 argument. They
also identify the critical role of sensegivers and implicit messages in psychological contract
formation. Subsequently, Tomprou joined Rousseau and Montes in a concise charting of
psychological contract evolution, drawing on worldwide research (Rousseau, Tomprou &Montes, 2013).
I was first exposed to these developments when, at the second Psychological Contract Group
Workshop (Canberra, 2012), “Psychological Contract Theory 2.0” (Montes et al., 2012) I was
excited because Montes and colleagues Rousseau and Tomprou’s approach closely paralleled
my own ‘Contracting’ approach (Tipples, 1996). Montes introduced PCT 2.0 with a review of
research on dynamic self-concepts and how they influenced the formation of psychologicalcontracts. That was expanded into the four phase model of employment relationship formation,with the four phases being Creation, Maintenance, Renegotiation and Repair. My Contracting
model had also had four parts: Pre-creation, Creation, Maintenance and Conclusion, but I had
called them stages. In Montes’ model the Renegotiation/Repair phases were placed around
two other events: Disruptions and Withdrawals.

93New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 90-102

Figure 1: Rousseau, Montes & Tomprou’s (2013: 12) Phase model of PsychologicalContracts

In employment relationships, disruptions inevitably occur whether from changed
circumstances or context, or negative behaviours. My model did not highlight disruptions, but
assumed them into the maintenance and conclusion phases. In effect, the maintenance phase
involved regular renegotiation and repairs as might result from regular staff appraisal anddevelopment meetings. If these could not happen or were unsuccessful, one enters theConclusion phase either for Termination (involuntary departures) or Withdrawal (voluntary
departures).
Achieving good job conclusions sent back positive feedback to future employees about thenature of working for a particular employer. Montes suggested their four phase approachhighlighted the role of goals and how changing goals were expressed in dynamic PCs. Also,that it clarified the links between promises, general expectations and perceived obligations,which all contribute to why PCs change over time and why not all disruptions are reacted tonegatively. Her claim that recognition of employee power was a new contribution seemed
rather naïve to me as someone who had been involved in employee organisations all of his
working life, but the inclusion of a coherent set of exchange behaviours was a valuableaddition, as was highlighting the conceptual differences between repair and renegotiation as a
future direction for research. Subsequently, PCT 2.0 has been formally published andemployee power has been dropped as a key component of the revised model. In my opinion,that diminution of employee agency is one of the greatest weaknesses of American
psychological contract research, but it has to be recognised that the role of the employee as anactive party in psychological contract negotiation and re-negotiation is highlighted in the mostrecent version of their paper (Rousseau et al., 2014).
To highlight the progress in the development of psychological contract theory, and thecontributions of key actors, three other views are presented besides Rousseau et al.’s
Psychological Contract Theory (2015): Guest (2004), Wong et al., (2010), Windle & von
Treuer (2014).

94

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 90-102

Figure 2: Guest’s (2004: 550) Framework for applying the psychological contract to theemployment relationship

In Guest’s (2004) systems diagram, the first two parts from the left could be said to be the Precreation and Creation phases; the third and fourth columns, ‘Psychological Contract’ and ‘Stateof the Psychological Contract’ cover the overlap between the Creation phase and theMaintenance phase; while the last column ‘Outcomes’ corresponds to the overlap between
Maintenance and Conclusion phases.
Wong et al. (2010) seek to integrate the psychological and formal elements of the employment
relationship, while transcending both the content and/process approaches to the nature of
relationships. Simultaneously, they emphasise the make-up of the deal and how its inherent
tensions play out (See Table 2 & Figure 3), with a specific focus on the individual employee,
which they regard as the key to ‘value creation’ (Wong, et al., 2010: 10):The deal framework integrates both the psychological and formal elements of theemployment relationship and seeks to transcend the description of the relationshipas using either a content or process approach; the framework simultaneously
emphasises both the make-up of the deal and how the tensions inherent within it
play out…It unashamedly focuses on the individual employee, a fundamental
player in value creation within organisations, but offers those with an interest inpeople management a new perspective on the dynamics of employee
conceptualisation of their employment deal.

95

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 90-102

Figure 3: The lifecycle of an employment deal built on psychological contract(Wong et al., 2010: 12)

The deal framework is unique as it captures both those participating in the deal and theprocesses that they engage in at the same time. Wong et al. (2010: 10-11) believe it is theidentification of how employees perceive their deal rather than what they see that is critical.
Moving away from the psychological contract framed within the employers’ terms andrealities, the deal framework recognises, based on Wong et al.’s, (2010: 37) research, theagency of the employee in shaping and interpreting the employer’s offer. As such it
provides insight into individual motivations, engagement, and ultimately performance(Table 2):…although the employer can shape and frame the deal on offer, the formation of
the psychological contract is firmly within the control of the employee. The deal
framework thus places the individual – their values, their attitudes, their life phases
and their expectations – centre stage of the engagement equation.
Windle and von Treuer (2014), from a recent survey of the psychological contract literature,
have developed an as yet untested temporal model of psychological contract formation. They
refer to three stages of socialisation which take place in the formation of a psychologicalcontract, but those are then divided into five stages: Pre-employment, Recruitment, Earlysocialization, Evaluation and Revision. (Figure 4). They also usefully distinguish between
theory as a more rigid representation of reality and a model, which is quite similar but more
fluid – less rigid – than a theory. While one piece of discrepant information can disprove atheory, a model is more accommodating of discrepancies.

96New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 90-102

Table 2: The deal framework (Wong et al., 2010: 15)

Figure 4: Proposed model illustrating the relative effect of factors in the development of
the psychological contract over time (Windle & von Treuer, 2014: 31)

97

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 90-102

Conclusions
First, nothing appears to have contradicted the original ‘Contracting’ approach for SMEs.
Several studies have reinforced the findings on which the original ‘Contracting’ approach was
based (e.g. Bauer et al., 2007, re. Kotter, 1973; Baur et al., 2014, re RJPs in Wanous et al.,1992). Some elements foreshadowed in 1996 (e.g. feedback loops) have become part of latermodels. The advocates of Psychological Contract Theory (Montes et al., 2015) have added
some significant refinements to the Phase structure differentiating Re-Negotiation and Repair,but they have failed to engage seriously with the role of employees as central to working out
the real nature of any specific psychological contract. This is a serious weakness as Contract
Law has for centuries assumed that a contract is freely negotiated between two equal parties.
Anything else is implying a degree of coercion on the part of the stronger party. Lord Diplockobserved in 1980: “A basic principle of the common law of contract …is that the parties to acontract are free to determine for themselves what primary obligations they will accept” (Beale,
2015: 22).
Montes et al., (2015) also appear to have succumbed to meeting the publication requirementsof the psychometric lobby and in so doing have moved their work away from the real worldand social negotiation into the abstract heights of academe (Herriot, 1992b).
Table 3: Comparison of approaches to psychological contract formation
Study
Tipples 1996
Characteristics
Pre-creation
Stages/Phases
Creation
Maintenance
Conclusion

Employeefocus
Feedback

Dynamics
Practical
applicability
Use by others

Balanced

Guest 2004

Wong et al.,2010
Systems
For each deal:
Model,
Balancingoverlaps of Sustaining
phasesRe-balancing

Rousseau
2014
Creation
MaintenanceRepair/Renegotiation
Withdraw

Balanced

Weak

StrongVia ‘Realistic’ Does
not Detailed tableapproachdiscuss but of
views
impliedthroughdifferent
lensesYes
Implied
Yes
Focused SME Expresses
Yes, rooted inapplication
causality not ‘deals’application
Used
by Frequently
Basis of CIPD
DairyNZ For quoted
approachtofarmerpractice rooted
training
inin PCsNew ZealandWindle and vonTreuer, 2014
Pre-employment
Recruitment
Earlysocialisation
Evaluation
Revision
StrongDistinguishes Focus
discrepancy
perceivedand velocity mutuality
feedback
Yes
Too psych/
hypothesis
based
Academic
focus

on

Yes
Providesanapplicable realworld model
A new integrated
model has beendeveloped.
Untested
psychometrically

Use of the relatively new term ‘employment deal’ has overcome the intimidating academic
discourse of ‘psychological contract’ and provided a term more accessible to the common man.
The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has highlighted, unashamedly, that
good deals for individual employees, as fundamental players in ‘value creation’ for firms, are98New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 90-102

a key to good employment relationships and economic success. Further, it may be argued thata ‘Contracting’ approach is still a simple way for small employers to address employment
issues in a pragmatic and efficient way which delivers good and productive employment
relationships.

References
Bauer, T.N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D.M., & Tucker, J.S. (2007). Newcomer
adjustment during organizational socialization: A meta-analytic review of antecedents,
outcomes and methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 707-721.
Baur, J.E., Buckley, M.R., Bagdasarov, Z. & Dharmasiri, A.S. (2014). A historical approach
to Realistic Job Previews: An exploration into their origins, evolution and recommendations
for the future. Journal of Management History, 20(2), 200-223.
Beale, H. (2015) Chitty on Contracts (32nd ed: Volume 1) General Principles, London: Sweet
and Maxwell.
Billikopf, G. (2014). Labour Management in Agriculture (3rd ed.) London: Sweet and Maxwell
Conway, N., & Briner, R.B. (2005). Understanding psychological contracts at work: A criticalevaluation of theory and research. New York: Oxford University Press
DelCampo. R. (2007). Understanding the psychological contract: A direction for the future.
Management Research News, 30(6), 432-440.
Godard, J. (2014). The psychologisation of employment relations? Human Resource
Management Journal, 24(1), 1-18.
Guest, D. (2004). The Psychology of the Employment Relationship: An Analysis Based on thePsychological contract. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53(4), 541-555.
Guest, D. (2007). Don’t shoot the messenger: A wake-up call for academics. Academy ofManagement Journal, 50(5), 1020-1026.
Handy, C. (1990). The Secret Contract. In C. Handy (ed.). Inside Organizations – 21 Ideas forManagers (pp.35-43). London: BBC Books
Herriot, P. (1992a). The Career Management Challenge – Balancing Individual andOrganizational Needs. London: Sage Publications
Herriot, P. (1992b). Selection: The Two Subcultures. European Work and Organisational
Psychologist, 2(2), 129-140.
Herriot, P., & Pemberton, C. (1995). New Deals: The revolution in managerial careers.
Chichester: Wiley

99

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 90-102

Hodgkinson, G.P., & Rousseau, D.M. (2009. Bridging the Rigour-Relevance Gap inManagement Research: It’s already happening! Journal of Management Studies, 46(3), 534546.
Kotter, J. (1973). The psychological contract: Managing the joining-up process. California
Management Review, 15(3), 91-99.
Latornell, J. (2007). The relationship between the ‘Psychological contract’ and ‘Employment
Relations’. Journal of Industrial Relations, 49(2), 277-286.
Lewin, K. (1951). Problems of research in social psychology. In D. Cartwright (ed.), Field
theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers (pp. 155-169). New York: Harper & Row.
Lorsch, J.W. (1979). On making behavioural science more useful. Harvard Business Review,51, 171-180.
McPhail, R., Jerrard, M. & Southcombe, A. (2015) Employment Relations – An Integrated
Approach. South Melbourne; Cengage Learning Australia
Mintzberg, H. (1973). The Nature of Managerial Work. New York: Harper & Row.
Montes, S., Rousseau, D. & Tomprou, M. (2012). Psychological Contract Theory 2.0. Paper
presented at the 2nd Psychological Contract Workshop, Canberra, Australia.
Nettle, R., Semmelroth, A., Ford, R., Zheng, C., & Ullah, A. (2011). Retention of people indairy farming. Melbourne, Australia: Gardiner Foundation
Rousseau, D.M. (2006). Is there such a thing as “evidence-based management”? Academy ofManagement Review, 31(2), 256-269.
Rousseau, D., & Barends, E. (2011). Becoming an evidence-based HR practitioner. Human
Resource Management Journal, 21(3), 221-235.
Rosseau, D., Montes, S., & Tomprou, M. (2014). Psychological Contract Theory 2.0. (Working
Paper). Carnegie-Mellon University: Heinz School of Public Policy and Management,
Pittsburgh, PA.
Rousseau, D.M., Tomprou, M. & Montes, S. (2013). Psychological contract theory. In E.
Kessler (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Management Theory (vol. 2, pp. 634-639). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage
Schein, E. (1965). Organizational Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Schein, E. (1970). Organizational Psychology (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Schein, E. (1970). Organizational Psychology (3rd ed.). Pearson
Sullivan, J., Wong, W., Adusumilli, D., Albert, A., Blazey, L.,Huggett, M. & Parker, J. (2009).
Deal or no deal? An exploration of the modern employment relationship. (The Future of HR
Working Paper). London: The Work Foundation
100New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 90-102

Tipples, R. (1996). Contracting: The key to Employment Relations. International Employment
Relations Review, 2(2), 19-41
Tipples, R. (2005). Self-management and managing employees. In N. Shadbolt & S.Martin(eds.). Farm Management in New Zealand (pp.182-200). Melbourne: Oxford University Press
Tipples, R. (2012). The efficacy of psychological contract – a personal journey. Paper
presented at the 2nd Psychological Contract Workshop, Canberra, Australia.
Tipples. R. & Beswell, D. (2010). Do employer groups help with dairy farm employment? Why
has the ideal not ‘caught on’? Paper presented at the 14th Labour, Employment and work
Conference, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Retrieved fromhttp://www.victoria.ac.nz/vms/researchcentres/LEW_Published _Papers.aspx
Tipples, R., Hoogeveen, M. & Gould, E. (2000). Getting employment relationships right.
Primary Industry Management, 3(2), 23-26
Tipples, R., & Rawlinson, P. (2014) The RSE, a tool for dairying? Understanding the
Recognised Seasonal Employer policy and its potential application to the dairy industry.
(Working paper, no.1). Lincoln University, New Zealand: Department of Agricultural
Management & Property Studies.
Tipples, R., & Verry, J. (2007). How to manage staff with individual contracts? Someexperiences with academic psychological contracts in New Zealand. In P.K. Basu, G. O’Neill& A. Travaglione (eds.). Engagement and Change: Exploring Management Economic andFinance implications of a Globalising Environment (pp.105-116). Brisbane: AustralianAcademic Press
Tomprou, M., & Nikolau, I. (2011). A model of psychological contract creation uponorganizational entry. Career Development International, 16(4), 342-363
Wanous, J.P. (1992). Organisational entry: recruitment, Selection, Orientation andSocialization of Newcomers. Reading, Mass. : Addison-Wesley
Wanous, J.P., Poland, P.D., Premack, S.L., & Davis, K.S. (1992). The Effects of Met
Expectations on Newcomer Attitudes and Behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(3),288-297.
Wellin, M. (2007). Managing the Psychological Contract – Using the Personal Deal to
Increase Business Performance. Aldershot: Gower
Windle, K., & von Treuer, K. (2014). Psychological Contract Development: An Integration of
Existing Knowledge to Form a Temporal Model. International Journal of business and social
Research, 4(7), 23-37.
Wong, W., Blazey, L., Sullivan, J., Zoltoukhova, K., Albert, A., & Reid, B. (2010)
Understanding the deal. The Work Foundation: Lancaster University.
101New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 90-102

Yuan, S., Cain, T., & Spoonley, P. (2014). Temporary Migrants as Vulnerable Workers: A
Literature Review. (Report prepared for the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment[MBIE]).
Wellington.
Retrievedfromhttps://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/fms/Research/ntom/Yuan%20Cain%20and%20Spoonley%202014.pdf?23A2F083283EE192CA49A530EA4B72F8

Notes‘Contracting’ is not used here as in Transactional Analysis, but to refer to the mutual
agreements achieved between employers and employees, whether that refers to expectations,perceptions of promises, or obligations, in an exchange environment with reciprocity(Retrieved from http:www.businessballs.com/psychological-contracts-theory.htm on 18
March 2014).
1

When database ABI-Inform was searched (21 March 2014) for ‘Psychological contract’
there were 51,039 hits. Google Scholar listed some 17,900 publications.
2102New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 103-107

Commentary: The Dairy Workplace Action Plan, Kelly’s ‘Pledge
Washing’, and the Health and Safety at Work Act, 2015
RUPERT TIPPLES*
Abstract
The dairy farming industry has launched its Dairy Workplace Action Plan to tackle endemic employment
problems of attracting and retaining staff, high staff turnover, changing career patterns and the increasinguse of migrant workers, especially in non-traditional South Island dairy farming areas. The Action Plan
is based on moving from mere compliance to having quality dairy farming workplaces through actions
represented in five themes. However, Kelly has described this as 'pledge washing’, which is a managerial
strategy to avoid formal regulation. The Action Plan represents a continuation of the long run oppositionof dairy farming employers to any form of worker organisation or formal participation. This continues toundermine pan industry public good organisations such as PrimaryITO.
The Sustainable Dairying Workplace Action Plan is the result of collaborative work primarily between
DairyNZ and Federated Farmers. It addresses the increasingly high profile employment issues which haveaffected the dairy industry for many years – issues of attraction, recruitment and retention of staff,
problems of high staff turnover, changed career prospects, the need for migrant workers, the lack ofstatutory compliance, and the shift of dairy farming southwards, together with a change to more employedrather than self-employed staff. A radical new plan was launched on 8 October at a Lincoln University
Dairy Farm Focus Day by Minister for Primary Industries, Nathan Guy (Action Plan to attract skilleddairy workers, 2015, October 20). One of the key drivers for the Action Plan is the growing realisation
that, in a competitive global environment, it is necessary to have products that are ethically produced fromindustries that exhibit good social responsibility to remain competitive. Hence, the desire for ‘Good dairy
employment’. The Action Plan sets a number of important precedents and marks a landmark day for the
dairy industry.
It is very pleasing, after an academic lifetime teaching and researching rural employment relations andother subjects at Lincoln University, to see that these efforts may have had an influence on the Plan. Oneof the key ideas behind my research and teaching, known academically as the psychological contract,
underpins much of the plan, although it is not mentioned directly. It refers to the mutuality of expectations
between every employer and employee, supervisor and subordinate, principal and contractor, husband andwife, and so on – in fact every form of human relationship. Understanding the psychological contract isvery useful for understanding problems of staff turnover. Another exciting feature is to see DairyNZ andFederated Farmers developing psychological contracts with themselves as representatives of the industry
with the industry at large, by confirming their expectations for the five pillars on which the Action Plan isbuilt. The Pillars are embodied in a simple diagram, in which a foundation of compliance supports thefive pillars which in turn lead to a quality workplace.

*

Honorary Associate Professor of Employment Relations, Lincoln University

103New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 103-107

5 Pillars of Good People Management (DairyNZ & Federated Farmers, 2015)
Each of the pillars on which the accord is based would merit a separate article. Two key issues arerecognised – the tyranny of long hours and poor rosters and excess staff member fatigue. The goal of
DairyNZ and Federated Farmers is not just compliance, (the achieving of which has been seen up to now
as a problem), but instead voluntary engagement by becoming ‘Good Dairy Employers’. The latter isvery similar to the ‘Decent Dairy Farmers’ identified by the industry in our recent Lincoln fatigue research
funded by DairyNZ (Tipples, Hill, Wilson & Greenhalgh, 2013).
One research finding reported (DairyNZ & Federated Farmers, 2015) is that dairy farmers today rate farm
employees as more important than other factors, such as pasture, herd quality and infrastructure in dairy
farming’s future. That is a significant change from the past. Moreover, careful reading of the Plan reveals
that employees feature strongly in it, which is surprising in light of the furore over the introduction of therecent Health and Safety at Work Act. Farming was being expected to have employee health and safety
representatives as a high risk industry. That had led, after lobbying, to farming being downgraded to only
medium risk and, therefore, not needing such representatives (Rutherford, 2015). Under Pillar 3 of the
new Workplace Action Plan, ‘Wellness, Wellbeing, Health and Safety’, the dairy industry recognises it
has an unacceptable level of workplace accidents and is expected to improve its health and safetysignificantly. Under Pillar 5, ‘Effective Team Culture’, employers and employees are expected to work
together in setting health and safety plans, but there is no mention of formal representation.
Another pleasing feature is the high profile given to the contribution of the migrant component of the farmwork force. It is now some 10 per cent of the workforce at large but they are on temporary visas, whichhave an average duration of 1.5 years. Some 50 per cent of such migrants are from the Philippines. The
Plan recognises the rapid growth in the number of migrant workers, particularly in the districts with ahuge growth in dairying, such as Canterbury and Southland, but only hints at the need to enhance local
communities in those areas, which historically have been some of the most homogeneous parts of New
Zealand. If the industry wishes to encourage career building and community development in new dairy
farming areas, as the Plan suggests, perhaps it should consider the next generation of dairy farmers being
104

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 103-107
Filipino, much as the Dutch impacted the industry in the 1950s (Krivokapic-Skoko, 2001). However, thatwill require significant changes to current immigration rules which seem to operate against Filipinos
getting permanent residence status, although they are now a very valuable part of the industry (Poulter &Sayers, 2015; Poulter, Sayers & Tipples, 2016).
Current statistical and other information underpinning the ‘Dairy Industry Strategy’ and ‘The New
Zealand Dairy Story’ is another helpful feature of the Action Plan. The information highlights the growthin the industry and dairy production, but unfortunately does not feature the contribution of the dairy
industry to Gross Domestic Product – the New Zealand Economy. Dairy represents 47 per cent of all
farming exports, demonstrating that the dairying industry is very important to the New Zealand economy.
However, if the Plan is examined from an employment relations point of view, it just confirms the unitary
approach of Federated Farmers and DairyNZ, which goes back to the early days of the Arbitration systembefore World War I. Helen Kelly, former President of the Combined Trade Unions (CTU), made a pointin her final speech as President (October 2015) that the process of development of the Work Place Accord
had specifically rejected a participatory role for organised labour. In effect, the Accord is the farmers’view of how to solve their well-documented employment problems in ways that they say are in the bestinterests of employers and employees, regardless of what employees actually think. This continued atrend that was most prominent when dairy farm employers killed off the Farm Workers’ Association,
which had been created as an independent collective of farm employees not affiliated to the CTU underthe Agricultural Workers Act 1977 (Angove, 1994; Tipples, 1995). Since then, there has been an ongoing problem in many pan agriculture organisations such as the AgITO, now Primary ITO, which has amajor role in farm safety training, finding someone to represent farm workers’ views (Tipples, 2011).
Kelly has described farming as “…this most important part of our economy (which) is still the wild west
when it comes to employment practice.”
She went on:
We have highlighted this in the simplest of ways – using social media representing farmworkers, gathering the data and using the mainstream media, and the industry has felt thepressure. Not enough pressure to fix this problem – only enough to look for alternate ways tocounter the criticism. The industry continues to be extremely dangerous with no sign ofimprovement in accident numbers. 7 people have been killed on quad bikes alone in
agriculture this year at the same time as the Minister passes law removing farm workers’ rights
in health and safety. But the latest move by DairyNZ, supported by the Feds and worst of all
supported by Government departments is the attempt to ‘pledge wash’ the employment issues
on farms.
Pledging is the new black in this country. Since I took up this job everyone is doing it. Insteadof bargaining, setting and maintaining standards etc. with unions, business draws up its pledge
to address some issue where they are under fire and gets employers to sign it….The mostrecent example of this pledging is the just launched ‘Sustainable Dairying Workplace Action
Plan’ which was launched last week – it was developed with the help of MBIE, Worksafe,
ACC and MPI – they were all in there and the results speak volumes about what they view asaspirational for New Zealand farm workers. We approached DairyNZ when we heard about
this initiative seeking for them to develop this with us and the workforce and with ambition.
105

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 103-107
Documents on workers’ rights should have a workers voice right? We were rejected both by
the Federated Farmers and DairyNZ.
After giving some examples of new undesirable norms in the sector, she continued:
This is an industry more and more reliant on migrant labour to feather its low wage survival.
This new document (new pledge wash) notes the huge turnover in dairy and the fact that fewer
and fewer registered unemployed are being engaged on farms, and that many farmers spend
very little on training – but this document is as good as it gets and it will be used every time
we raise concerns – oh yes, we are concerned they will say – and that is why we have thissensational charter – The pledge wash by DairyNZ shows in one way we are having an impact– our work has led to this charter. On the other hand Government departments that know theirinternational obligations on worker rights and have relationships with the NZCTU think it isperfectly fine to collaborate on this document that is designed to create a fiction that theworkforce issues on farms are being resolved by the industry - and most worryingly – both theGovernment departments and DairyNZ and the Feds are desperately trying to fight the realitythat workers in the agriculture sector would be much better off joining a union for these mattersto be fairly addressed. The last thing they want is that and together this collaboration is theirpush back against our campaign. It is our continuing obligation to expose this sort of malarkey
and continue to speak on behalf of these workers and encourage them to organize (Kelly, 2015:
2-3).
So in Kelly’s opinion, this example of ‘pledge washing’ will prove problematic for achieving higher
standards quickly in the farming sector. With the Fed’s focus on putting in place this ‘pledge wash’ that
Kelly argues will slow progress because it is unenforceable, they may, in fact, have missed the muchgreater problems awaiting them in the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, which came into effect on 4
April 2016. While they have avoided the issue of safety representation following ministerial intervention,
they will still be bound by the central requirements of the Act. In effect, lack of necessity for safety
representation may be a pyrrhic victory. Under the new Act every principal involved in a business (Person
Conducting a Business or Undertaking – PCBU) will have a primary duty to ensure employees, and others
affected by its work, can work in a safe and healthy environment. All PCBUs acquire personal liability
for accidents occurring in the workplace. These will not be able to be avoided by blaming intermediaries
or contractors and cannot be insured against. PCBUs will have to conduct hazard identification andappropriate training for hazard avoidance. Accidents, which have to be notified to WorksafeNZ, show afailure to do so and criminal liability comes back directly to the business owners including farmers. In
future, escaping those responsibilities will be difficult and potentially incur penalties up to $600,000
and/or 5 years imprisonment for sole traders or officers and $3 million for companies.
DairyNZ and Federated Farmers have taken many brave steps with this accord, not only recognizing longhours and fatigue as problematic, but also recognising that competitive wage and salary rates that attract
and retain talented people are required. However, still more could be done. For example, a system ofcollecting reliable data on hours worked, wages paid, incidences of work-related injuries and illnesses etc.
needs to be established. Finally, recognition needs to be given to the changing demographics of the farmworker population and the changing nature of the work where individual’s psychological contracts should
to include freedom of association.

106

New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(3): 103-107

References
Action Plan to attract skilled dairy workers. (2015, October 20). Selwyn Times, 26
Angove, N. (1994). The New Zealand Farm Workers Association: its rise and fall 1974-1987. In P. Walsh(ed.). Trafe Unions – Work and Society – the Centenary of the Arbitration System (pp.155-175).
Palmerston North: The Dunmore Press Ltd
DairyNZ & Federated Farmers. (2015)
Hamilton/Wellington: Author. Retrived fromdairying-workplace-action-plan-WEB.PDF

Sustainable Dairying Workplace Action Plan.
http://www.dairynz.co.nz/media/2841148/sustainable-

Kelly,
H.
(2015).
Helen
Kelly’s
CTU
Conference
http://union.org.nz/news/2015/helen-kellys-ctu-conference-address

Address.

Retrieved

from

Krivokapic-Skoko, B. (2001). Understanding ethnic entrepreneurship in agricultural settings: Qualitative
Comparative Analysis of ethnic groups in New Zealand agriculture. (PhD Thesis). Lincoln University,
New Zealand.
Poulter, C., & Sayers, J. (2015). Retention of skilled migrants in the New Zealand Dairy Industry. New
Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 40(2), 1-23.
Poulter, C., Sayers, J., & Tipples, R. (2016) The importance of retaining skilled migrants in the New
Zealand dairy industry. The Journal – The Official Publication of the New Zealand Institute of Primary
Industry Management Incorporated, 20(1), 36-41.
Rutherford, H. (2015). Health and safety reform bill passes, amid division over representation. Retrievefrom
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/71522468/Health-and-safety-reform-bill-passes-amiddivision-over-worker-representation
Tipples, R. (1995). The re-regulation of farming employment relations in New Zealand. Sociologia
Ruralis, XXXV(1), 93-109.
Tipples, R. (2011). Seeing OSH solutions to precarious working in the growth of New Zealand dairy
farming: a research agenda. In M. Sargeant & M. Giovannone (eds.). Vulnerable workers-safety, Wellbeing and Precarious Work (Chapter 9. Aldershot: Gower.
Tipples, R.S., Hill, R., Wilson, K. & Greenhalgh, J. (2013). ‘Decent dairying’ – Findings from a Change
Laboratory process to reduce fatigue on New Zealand dairy farms. Extension Farming Systems Journal,9(1), 132-140

107