Trainee programs: an emerging model on psychological contract reciprocity

Pages1738-1754
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1108/PR-01-2016-0011
Date06 November 2017
Published date06 November 2017
AuthorLinnea Jonsson,Sara Thorgren
Subject MatterHR & organizational behaviour,Global HRM
Trainee programs: an emerging
model on psychological
contract reciprocity
Linnea Jonsson
Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden, and
Sara Thorgren
Department of Business Administration,
Technology and Social Sciences/Entrepreneurship and Innovation,
Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to develop a deeper understanding of the organization-trainee
relationship through a psychological contract lens, by exploring the psychological contract between the
trainee and organization during and after the program and what factors may accountfor contract reciprocity.
Design/methodology/approach Inductive qualitative study design.
Findings Data suggested that factors accounting for contract reciprocity during the program included:
traineesresponsibilities, traineespersonal and professional development, traineescommitment, trainees
delivery, and managerial and supervisory support. Factors identified accounting for contract reciprocity after
individuals completed the program were: career opportunities, future-oriented dialogue between former
trainees and managers, wage-setting, job tasks, and working conditions.
Originality/value This exploratory research is original in that it identifies different factors accounting for
the reciprocity during and after the program, and how this may be particularly relevant when talents are
recruited externally to specifically participate in the program.
Keywords Qualitative, Psychological contract, Reciprocity, Expectations, Social exchange,
Trainee program
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The interest for talent management (TM), targeting high-performing individuals with high
potentialfor contributing to the organizations competitive advantage,has grown significantly
among scholars and practitioners in the past decade (e.g. Björkman et al., 2013; Collings and
Mellahi, 2009; Tarique and Schuler, 2010; Iles et al., 2010; Farndale et al., 2010). In the effort to
fill key positions with competent individuals, various types of talent programs have become
increasingly popular (Dries and De Gieter, 2014; Malik and Singh, 201 4). To date, scholars
interested in TM have focused primarily on talent programs for existing employees and
developing internal talent pools of high potential employees (Björkman et al., 2013;Malik and
Singh, 2014; Sonnenberg et al., 2014). Less emphasis, in turn, has been placed on talent
programs for whichtalent is recruited externally. One such program,which is the focus of the
present study, is trainee programs designed to attract, recruit, develop, and eventually retain
young, recentlygraduated professionals with skillsconsidered essential for theorganizations
competitiveness, a typeof program that is consideredto be important asthe war for talent gets
greater (Dysvik et al., 2010).
Despite the growing literature in TM there is, however, still not scholarly consensus on
how to define talent(Lewis and Heckman, 2006; Collings and Mellahi, 2009; Höglund, 2012;
Thunnissen et al., 2013). Similarly, traineeis conceptualized in various ways and theory
and practice differ. Furthermore, TM in theory is often criticized for unclear definitions and
a significant lack of theoretical frameworks (Al Ariss et al., 2014; Lewis and Heckman, 2006;
Gallardo-Gallardo et al., 2013; Gelens et al., 2013). While in theory it is common that trainee
Personnel Review
Vol. 46 No. 8, 2017
pp. 1738-1754
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/PR-01-2016-0011
Received 18 January 2016
Revised 11 August 2016
7 November 2016
Accepted 2 December 2016
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
1738
PR
46,8
programs are a type of leadership development program (McDermott et al., 2006), this is not
always true in practice. Rather, the extreme opposite situation could exist where trainees are
not offered any additional benefits or opportunities compared to those who are recruited
outside the talent investment.
With unclear and various interpretations of what trainees actually are, we recognize that this
could lead to problematic issues related to mismatching perceptions of promises and obligations.
Moreover, employers are about to face a new generation of employees (Generation Y), whose
expectations and needs differ from previous generations (Hewlett et al., 2009). In general terms,
Generation Y individuals are less loyal to employers than previous generations, but at the same
time more ambitious, and they value personal and professional development and a profession
that contributes to society and autonomy (Hewlett et al., 2009). Consequently, trainees are
subject to possible unclear messages about what is meant by a trainee program, and they may
also have generation-related expectations of their future employer that differ from prior
generations of employees. The competition for talents means that employers must meet both
unclear and newexpectations among those they recruit as trainees. If those expectations are
not met, there is a risk that the organization may face difficulties retaining talented trainees.
In other words, the lack of a joint frameworkonTMingeneralandontraineeprograms
specifically poses a challenge for scholars and practitioners. Furthermore, more research
is needed to guide organizations in successfully managing the talented employees
(Al Ariss et al., 2014) not only for the purpose of finding better ways to educate and train
talented graduates, but also to make sure that organizations are able to meet their expectations
(Connor and Shaw, 2008) and in doing so ensure return on investment and retention.
To address these challenges, we draw on the notion of psychological contracts
(Rousseau, 1995). The majority of research on psychological contracts has focused on
contract breaches and violations (Robinson and Morrison, 2000; Robinson and Rousseau, 1994).
Less research has focused on how psychological contracts arise and what they contain,
especially in the context of trainee programs as a TM activity. Indeed, understanding processes
underlying the psychological contract between the trainee and the organization may be a means
to gain knowledge about possible mismatched perceptions regarding what is to be exchanged.
Against the above background, the present study aims to gain a deeper understanding of
the psychological contract between the organization and the trainee. More specifically, we
explore two questions: how does psychological contract reciprocity look like during
and after the program? And what factors might account for the reciprocity of the contract?
We employ a case study with empirical data from archives and interviews to capture how
current and former trainees and their managers or supervisors perceived and fulfilled
expectations of obligations and rewards.
Theoretical background
Psychological contracts
Psychological contracts have been defined as the terms of an exchange agreement between
individuals and their organizations(Rousseau, 1995, p. 9). The psychological contract
consists of an individuals understanding of perceived promises and obligations concerning
the employment relationship, such as promises of career advancement in return for diligent
and high-quality work (Morrison and Robinson, 1997; Robinson and Morrison, 2000).
Obligations from the employer to the employee have been the center of attention within
academic literature on psychological contracts (Boswell et al., 2001; Rousseau, 2001). Much
less attention has been paid to the kinds of obligations the employee has to the employer (for
exceptions see e.g. Robinson et al., 1994).
Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) suggests that both the individual and the
organization expect a balance concerning obligations and promises. Indeed, reciprocity is
the foundation for the relationship between the employer and employee. This can mean that
1739
Trainee
programs

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT