Whataburger Case

A fast food chain based out of Texas, “Whataburger” has recently come under the media spotlight. When two police officers entered the restaurant and tried to order, an employee turned them away. The employee’s reasoning for this was that “we don’t serve police officers here”. This certainly violated a psychological agreement between Whataburger and the employee, and ultimately had a negative impact on the employee and the business organization. The worker was swiftly fired by Whataburger, which results in a negative impact on the employee’s life. The worker was not the only party to suffer from this incident; Whataburger’s public image was certainly tarnished as well.

(2) Apply Concept

When viewing the handout that lists several examples of

employee-employer psychological agreements, three of which appear to have been violated in my example. First, “work hard and advance the company’s reputation” has surely been breeched.

The employee in this situation hurt Whataburger’s reputation by not serving police. For the most part, Police Officers in this country are respected and are (rightfully so) seen as individuals who put their lives on the line to protect the community. Claiming that you don’t serve officers will certainly have a huge backlash in sales for Whataburger. Next, “show loyalty to the organization” is violated in this case. This is straightforward for the most part. Damaging your employer’s public reputation doesn’t demonstrate loyalty in any form. Lastly, this employee contravenes the psychological contract of “be courteous to clients and colleagues”. Whether it be Police, a certain race, religion, or occupation; refusing to serve a group of people simply because of how they identify is not courteous or professional. However, it is important to note that this case is certainly not as straightforward as it is seems. The employee could have experienced a psychological contract infringement from his employer, which caused him to act out in the manner that he did. By no means is this a justification for his behavior, but it can serve as an explanation as of why the employee

did refuse to serve the police. Additionally, a psychological contract between a police officer and a civilian could have been violated, which may be why the employee voiced his hostility for law enforcement. In the reading for this assignment, “Destruction/Neglect” is listed as a response to a psychological contract violation. It is possible that this employee didn’t have any problem with Police Officers, but simply intended to damage his employer’s reputation in response to a psychological contract infringement. If this was indeed the employee’s intention, he couldn’t have chosen a more passionately debated topic at the moment. The “real cost” of this on Whataburger’s business is catastrophic. In a time when Police are constantly under fire for brutality and racial discrimination, many feel that they have to choose sides. Coming out to the public as a representative of Whataburger, claiming that they do not serve police will have detrimental consequences for the business, especially in a traditionally conservative state such as Texas. Additionally, the negative impact extends to the employee in the form of job loss and death threats that he has received.

(3) Critique the Concept:

Psychological contracts from employee to employer are a fundamental part of building a successful business. Because essentially, a business is nothing without it’s employees. When managers violate such contracts they risk compromising worker productivity, trust, and ultimately risk having their employees leave or intentionally trying to sabotage the company. I realize that tough business decisions have to made and some employees with feel mistreated and develop a sense of mistrust with their managers. There is not way around this, but managers must put forth their best efforts to be completely transparent and honest with employees to that expectations are realistic. Additionally, managers must realize how vital such psychological contracts are to the workplace and the relationships that are developed within the organization. However, cons to analyzing psychological contracts still exist. One being that since there is actually no physical contract, one party or the other could fail to realize that such a contract even exists. For example, an employee could believe that great performance leads to a promotion but this may necessarily not be true if a promotion is not available. This can result in the employee feeling cheated and ultimately loses trust for the company. Taking into both the pros and cons, I believe analyzing psychological contracts in the workplace is useful. It explains employee and employer behavior and ultimately incentivizes both parties to follow certain guidelines, which enhances the firms performance as a whole.

I got my information for section one from an article in the Washington Post titled ‘We don’t serve police': Whataburger employee fired after denying service” written by Sarah Larimer.