The Theory Behind Breaking The Psychological Contract - Example Boris Johnson

This is not an article designed to be political in any way or about Dominic Cummings, it's about the effects and fall out from Boris Johnson breaking the psychological contract between him, his party and the public. By psychological contract, I'm talking about the perceptions and informal obligations between the public and the government (aka Boris and his friends).

The SAGE committee have for weeks been advising the government on how best to meet the challenges that COVID19 has brought. They have been using behavioural science to ensure the best language is used and choose who is best to deliver difficult messages—all with the view that words matter, the delivery matters and the timing matters. 

If these three elements are not exactly right, then the chances of the public buying in and forming a critical psychological contract won't be effective. Now I think we can all say, at times this in practice has not always hit the mark. However, in large, it was effective in reducing the spread, and we have seen a decline in the mortality rate. 

But back to the topic in hand, yesterday you saw a masterclass in precisely what a leader should never do, break the psychological contract while demonstrating a complete lack of awareness of the responsibility you hold as a leader. 

Over the last number of weeks, the public has developed a firm psychological contract with the government plan (if you agree with it or not) as well as the scientists and medical professionals. All built on the basis that we are all in this together, on the same playing field and all needing to follow the same guidelines. 

The basis and core objective of using the behavioural science was to scare the public into following guidance and now using the same tactic make people feel secure in the easing of restrictions (which has not even got underway). 

As already said, with the understanding that words matter, the delivery matters and the timing matters. 

At such a critical time, Boris has failed the test in a way he will seriously regret. If as we have already seen, the reproductive rate climbs as restrictions ease. The government may want to change tact as they did at the start of the crisis (we all recall the herd immunity approach), they will find this next to impossible without strict new laws, which in a democratic society, won't bode well. 

This is because the psychological contract the public forged, has been fundamentally compromised in the most public way. The public will respond to any moves to repair this with the response, why. Why should I when you fail to hold your people to account.

Boris now has minimal credibility in the words he or the scientists and medical professionals use, the delivery, if done by people connected with Boris, will struggle to break through and be credible as they may be seen to be complicit in the failure to hold Cummings to account. Even if an argument could be made, he was justified in his actions; it's about optics at this point. The PMs delivery was to straight-up reject any wrongdoing, further solidifying the breach of the psychological contract and the timing could not have been worse. We are currently facing a period where people are starting to taste normality again in small ways. We need the public to be engaged in guidance, not view it with scepticism and question their validity.

The message here, as leaders the words we use, the way we deliver them and when we choose to use them matter. 

Boris needed to take this opportunity (which in some ways could have been an enormous gift) to enhance the psychological contract with the public. Showing that no matter who you are, the guidelines are there to be followed by all. This could have been an opportunity to grow support and adherence to the plans and guidance to come. In many ways, he failed, as evidenced by the public feel towards his actions.

All that said, the majority will still comply in large part to the good common sense approach to minimising the spread. However, as we've seen, it only takes a few per cent to spread the infection like wildfire, the question is, when this happens, how much will the few per cent heed the government restriction changes without strong new laws.

Where does Boris go from here, we will have to wait and see. But one thing is for sure; it will be an uphill battle for him, the scientists and medical professionals. 

Well, that's just my two cents on the subject of psychological contracts at these times.

References

Coyle‐Shapiro, J. and Kessler, I., 2000. Consequences of the psychological contract for the employment relationship: A large scale survey. Journal of management studies, 37(7), pp.903-930.

Walker, A. and Hutton, D.M., 2006. The application of the psychological contract to workplace safety. Journal of safety research, 37(5), pp.433-441.

Newaz, M. T., Davis, P., Jefferies, M. and Pillay, M. (2019). The psychological contract: a missing link between safety climate and safety behaviour on construction sites, Safety Science. 112: 9-17. 

Cullinane, N. & Dundon, T. (2006). The psychological contract: A critical review, International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(2): 113-129

Guest, D. E. (2004). The psychology of the employment relationship: an analysis based on the psychological contract, Applied psychology: An international review. 53(4): 56451-555.

Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) (2020). SPI-B insights on combined behavioural and social interventions. [online] Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/873726/04-spi-b-insights-on-combined-behavioural-and-social-interventions.pdf

Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) (2020). SPI-B Options for increasing adherence to social distancing measures. [online] Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/882722/25-options-for-increasing-adherence-to-social-distancing-measures-22032020.pdf