Newcomer psychological contracts and employee socialization activities: Does perceived balance in obligations matter? q Stephanie C. Payne a, * , Satoris S. Culbertson b , Wendy R. Boswell c , Eric J. Barger d a Texas A&M University, Department of Psychology, 4235 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-4235, USA b Kansas State University, Department of Psychology, 492 Bluemont Hall, 1100 Mid-Campus Drive, Manhattan, KS 66506-5302, USA c Texas A&M University, Department of Management, Mays Business School, College Station, TX 77843-4221, USA d Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, 9509 Key West Avenue, Rockville, MD 20850, USA article info Article history: Received 20 June 2008 Available online 13 September 2008 Keywords: Psychological contracts Newcomers Socialization activities Obligations Balance abstract We sought to determine the extent to which one’s beliefs about the relationship between an employee and an organization at the start of employment influence subsequent social- ization activities. The balance of employee exchange relationships, employee perceptions of both their own obligations and the employers’ obligations, were collected from 120 newcomers in a public sector organization on the first day of employment and again three months later. We found the relationship between employee obligations and two socializa- tion activities (time with mentor and time spent in training) depended on the employee’s perceptions of what the employer owed the employee, such that employees in unbalanced relationships tended to engage in more socialization activities than employees in balanced relationships. Ó 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction In an effort to understand changing relationships between employees and their employers (Roehling, Cavanaugh, Moynihan, & Boswell, 2000), researchers have studied employees’ perceptions of the nature of that relationship. This body of research has referred to the employment relationship as a psychological contract (e.g., Rousseau, 1989), an exchange relationship (Shore & Barksdale, 1998), and/or an employee–organization relationship (Tsui, Pearce, Porter, & Tripoli, 1997). Central to psychological contract theory is the existence of a link, in the mind of the employee, between the provision of certain levels of effort to the organization in exchange for particular rewards or considerations (Rousseau, 1995). Every employee holds a highly subjective view of reality regarding the terms of an exchange agreement between him or herself and the organization (Rousseau, 1995). The terms of the psychological contract are thus formed from a combination of individual and organizational influences and serve to direct an individual’s activities and behaviors within the organization (Rousseau, 1989). The degree of balance that is perceived between the employee’s obligations and employer’s obligations has important implications for both the employee and the organization (Shore & Barksdale, 1998). In this study, we extend research on the balance within psychological contracts to employee socialization. 0001-8791/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2008.09.003 q An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New York, NY, April 2007. The authors wish to express their appreciation to Brian Payne and Matthew Pariyothorn for their assistance with data collection and to Michael Wesson for his comments on an earlier draft of this paper. * Corresponding author. Fax: +1 979 845 4727. E-mail addresses: spayne@psych.tamu.edu (S.C. Payne), satoris@ksu.edu (S.S. Culbertson), wboswell@tamu.edu (W.R. Boswell), Eric.Barger@finra.org (E.J. Barger). Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (2008) 465–472 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Vocational Behavior journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb