For the past five years, Design Fabrications employees have been allowed to leave work every Wednesday afternoon early, either to attend football or to avoid the resulting traffic jams. This arrangement has always been “understood” and never written, so that it has become an unwritten custom. This is not necessarily the case. The changing world of work (and life beyond work) poses a threat to employers and the erosion of workers` contributions, traditionally taken for granted by employers. Changes in work and life, which continue to reshape the psychological contract, are reflected in both ways; they involve risks and opportunities (pros and cons) for employers and workers. On the other hand, the psychological contract between a more modern and enlightened employer and its employees, especially experienced and successful employees, should be much more clearly understood and visible, with more detailed contributions and rewards, formally and by mutual agreement. Here, the iceberg could be only 60% or 70% underwater. Although Roussau`s article[1] of 1989, as Coyle-Shapiro pointed out, “has been very influential in the management of contemporary research”[2], the concept of psychological contract was first introduced by Argyris (1960): “As foremen recognize that employees of this system will tend to produce optimally under passive leadership, and as employees agree , a relationship between workers and foremen may be suspected that could be referred to as a “psychological employment contract. The worker will maintain high production, low complaints, etc., if foremen guarantee and respect the standards of the worker`s informal culture (i.e. leave workers alone, ensure that they make decent wages and have safe jobs).” [3] The lack of transparency begins with a “vicious circle.” Distrust fuels mistrust. Secrecy promotes secrecy. Communication between the employer and the worker is generally closed and not open. Fear and mistrust are multiplying on both sides, especially among workers, whose perception of contract is degraded, which in turn leads to hostilities and fears.

For example, how we perceive our market value as a worker has a significant influence on the value our employer should put on us: a person who has secured an alternative job offer at a higher salary than his or her current job will tend to expect more from his current employer than someone who attended a dozen job interviews last year and did not receive a job offer. Employment contracts of any kind between two or more parties are established to describe each party`s obligations and describe what to do in the event of a problem. If all parties are happy to run and feel that the contract is being respected, then there is no problem and there is nothing to do. What is then in the psychological contract, which sometimes leads from relatively small factors to big problems in some situations, but not in others? However, this is an area in which an organization can use the employee-manager relationship by empowering managers and encouraging them to discuss and respond to psychological expectations of contracts with employees. Managers can help employees explore and, if necessary, change their expectations, which will offset negative reactions if unrealistic expectations are not met. Below the grid, you`ll find examples of how the work has changed. The watershed might have been in the 1980s, or perhaps the 1990s, it depends on your interpretation. But the fact is that at some point, in the last two decades of the 20th century, the world of work changed more than it had changed since the industrial revolution, which was from the late 1700s to the mid-18th century. From the tone of this article and the site that surrounds it, you can see that I am not a big fan of the company and management in the old style. Some employers and executives will wonder how, on earth, all these hidden and subjective factors can