Interpersonal Relations

Understanding the concept

Interpersonal relationships carry expectations that may never appear in a formal contract. A promotion promise can become central to how an employee interprets the relationship. When that expectation is broken, the response depends on the explanation, the history and the perceived fairness of the process.

Interpersonal relationships at work are governed by both formal agreements and unspoken psychological contracts about fairness and reciprocity. When a perceived promise is broken, employees reassess trust, perceived organizational support, and the quality of their exchange relationship (LMX) with their manager, often with effects beyond the individual involved.

The psychological contract concerns perceived reciprocal obligations. Trust concerns willingness to accept vulnerability; perceived organizational support concerns whether the organization values contribution and well-being. Leader–member exchange directs attention to the quality of a leader's relationships with different employees. High-quality relationships should not become a justification for favouritism. Managers need consistent procedures so access to information and development is not determined only by personal closeness.

Core components and theoretical lenses

Use the following distinctions to unpack the chapter's central idea. Each identifies a different aspect of the problem; their relationships matter as much as the labels themselves.

1. 01

   Trust (cognitive and affective)

2. 02

   Psychological contract (transactional and relational)

3. 03

   Perceived organizational support (POS)

4. 04

   Leader-member exchange (LMX) quality

5. 05

   Empathy in managerial response

Conceptual constructs

A construct names an idea used to interpret behaviour. It is not directly interchangeable with a survey score or a single incident. In this chapter, the constructs below organize the diagnosis; examine how they could explain the observations before deciding what to change.

• Psychological contract breach
• Perceived organizational support
• LMX
• Trust
• Organizational justice (related)

Observable and measurable indicators

Indicators connect an abstract explanation to something that can be observed. Check the operational definition, reporting period and comparison group. A survey average can conceal differences between teams, and an administrative record can reflect willingness to report as well as underlying behaviour.

• Employee engagement survey scores on trust-in-management items
• LMX quality ratings between manager and direct reports
• Voluntary attrition rate in the affected team
• Frequency of informal complaints or grievances raised
• Discretionary effort/OCB (organizational citizenship behavior) observed post-incident

Reading the case evidence

Separate what the case reports from what you infer. A figure can establish the scale of a problem without establishing its cause. Note what information is absent and how that gap affects your confidence in a recommendation.

Decision alternatives and trade-offs

Alternatives represent different priorities and assumptions. The advantages and limitations below are the existing module's analytical prompts. Compare them against the same evidence rather than choosing first and finding a theory afterward.

Evidence-based discussion

For the broken-promise case, separate what was explicitly committed from what was inferred, while taking the employee's experience seriously. Compare alternatives by their ability to restore credible expectations. An apology may be important, but it needs a clear account of future decisions and realistic commitments. Track whether behaviour changes consistently rather than assuming that one conversation repairs trust.

Theory-linked interpretation from the module

Ground the answer in psychological contract theory (distinguishing an unmet relational promise from a mere transactional miss), perceived organizational support (how the organization's response, not just the manager's, shapes future discretionary effort), and LMX (whether Arvind's individual relationship with Priya can still function as high-quality despite the org-level constraint).

Your managerial judgement

Which response should Arvind pursue to rebuild Priya's trust and limit the wider erosion of perceived organizational support among her peers, given he cannot lift the freeze himself?

Write a recommendation that identifies a preferred alternative, uses the reported evidence, acknowledges uncertainty and specifies a review point. Another choice can be defensible when its assumptions and trade-offs are made explicit.

Possible consequences

The module offers the following projections for discussion. They depend on implementation and context; they are not guaranteed effects or verified forecasts.

• Short-term: an honest conversation may cause short-term frustration but can prevent silent disengagement
• Short-term: delay in remedy (e.g., HR escalation) risks further engagement decline before resolution
• Long-term: how this is handled affects whether Priya and her two peers stay or seek external offers
• Long-term: unresolved breaches accumulate into a broader culture of low trust in managerial commitments
• Long-term: a credible remedy process can become a model for handling future freeze-related broken promises

Reflection questions

1. What is the difference between a transactional and a relational psychological contract, and which was broken here?
2. Why did the trust erosion spread to Priya's peers even though they were not directly affected?
3. Could Arvind have prevented this breach earlier, and how?
4. How does perceived organizational support differ from trust in one's immediate manager in this case?

Practice: Know → Analyse → Decide

These are the original module questions. Reading or printing this textbook does not change quiz scores, completion or certificate eligibility.