1、 中文 4250 字 本科毕业论文（设计） 外文翻译 外文出处 Bus Psychol， 2009（ 24）： P215-223 外文作者 Michael S.Chien 原文 ： The Mediating Effects of Psychological Contracts on the Relationship Between Human ResourceSystemsand Role Behaviors: A Multilevel Analysis Michael S.Chien Human Resource (HR) systems create and support employ
2、ment relationships . One way to operationalize an employment relationship is to assess an employees psychological contract or individual beliefs, shaped by the organization, regarding the terms of an exchange agreement between individuals and their organizations. Thus, psychological contracts can be
3、 treated as employees beliefs stemming from the HR system. Furthermore, psychological contracts represent employees beliefs about mutual employment obligations.Employees tend to perform what they believe, that is,according to their psychological contracts. Thus, psychological contracts are positivel
4、y related to employees role behaviors, turnover intentions, commitment, and trust . In other words, psychological contracts are not only formulated by HR systems but also influence employee behaviors. Consequently, psychological contracts can be viewed as the linking mechanism between HR systems and
5、 employee behaviors. In the past decade, most psychological contract research has focused on identifying the components of psychological contracts and the effects of the fulfillment or the violation of psychological contracts by employers. For example, Robinson et al. found that the components of ps
6、ychological contracts included expectations of high pay,pay based on the current level of performance, training, long-term job security, and career development. Based on these findings, Robinson and Morrison further proposed that employees are less likely to engage in civic virtue behavior when thes
7、e expectations were violated. In summary, researchers have confirmed that violated psychological contracts negatively influence employees role behaviors while fulfilled psychological contracts have positive influences. However, no studies have empirically examined psychological contracts as a linkin
8、g mechanism between HR systems and employee behaviors. Accordingly, the goal of this study is to empirically examine psychological contracts as a mediator of the relationship between HR systems and role behaviors. Our results will provide insights regarding the reason for HR systems having an effect
9、 on employees role behaviors. Based on these insights, HR practitioners will gain a better understanding of how to facilitate employees role behaviors (e.g.by offering them specific inducements). Subsequently, we provide a brief review of psychological contract research, discuss relationships betwee
10、n HR systems and psychological contracts, and propose psychological contracts as mediators of the HR systememployee behavior relationship. HR systems are considered as an organizational level variable, whereas psychological contracts and role behaviors are both considered as individual level variabl
11、es. Thus, relationships between HR systems and these variables are considered cross-level relationships and will be tested accordingly. Initially, a psychological contract was defined as an implicit, unwritten agreement between parties to respect each others norms and mainly used as a framework that
12、 referred to the implicitness of the exchange relationship between an employee and his/her employer. It did not acquire construct status until the seminal work of Rousseau in the 1990s. According to Rousseau, a psychological contract is an individuals belief regarding the terms and conditions of a r
13、eciprocal exchange agreement between employees and employers. Furthermore, psychological contracts include different kinds of mental models or schemas, which employees hold concerning reciprocal obligations in the workplace. In accordance with MacNeils typology of promissory contracts, Rousseau also
14、 categorized psychological contracts into two types: transactional and relational. Based on Rousseau and McLean Parks framework, transactional and relational psychological contracts differ on the following five characteristics: focus, time frame, stability, scope, and tangibility. Specifically,trans
15、actional contracts focus on economic terms, have a specific duration, are static, narrow in scope, and are easily observable. Relational contracts simultaneously focus on both economic and socio-emotional terms, have an indefinite duration, are dynamic, pervasive in scope, and are subjectively under
16、stood. In summary, transactional psychological contracts refer to employment arrangements with short-term exchanges of specified performance terms and relational psychological contracts refer to arrangements with long-term exchanges of non-specified performance terms. Empirical evidence supports not
17、 only the existence of these two different types of psychological contracts, but also the movement between them. For example, Robinson et al. found that as contracts become less relational, employees perceived their employment arrangements to be more transactional in nature. According to Arthur , HR
18、 systems can be classified as control or commitment systems. Control HR systems rely on enforcing employee compliance with specified rules and procedures and outcome-based rewards to achieve the goals of efficiency improvement and direct labor cost reduction. In contrast, commitment-based HR systems
19、 aim to increase effectiveness and productivity by developing committed employees who can identify with the goals of the organization, and who will work hard to accomplish those goals. Even though researchers have proposed different clusters of HR systems, commitment-based HR systems probably remain
20、 the most extensively applied. Commitment-based HR systems have broadly defined jobs, more extensive and general skills training, as well as higher salaries and more extensive benefits. When an organization offers these inducements, employees will perceive the organizations commitment to stable,long-term employment as well as support for the well- being
