Exploring Fresh Insights in Psychological Contract Research: Unveiling Perspectives From the Global South

Introduction

This paper examines the evolution of psychological contract (PC) research and the missing link of the developing world, also referred to in this article as Global South. Whilst psychological contract can be viewed as highly context-specific (Aldossari and Robertson, 2016), the extant literature on psychological contract has predominantly focused on adopting main cause-effects approach in investigating the psychological contract-outcome relationship and so doing various individual and situational variables have been largely ignored (Agarwal and Bhargava, 2013). There has been some research on culture in PCs – e.g. the work of David Thomas (2010) on ‘psychological contract across cultures – and the book of Schalk and Rousseau (2000) on ‘Psychological contracts in employment: cross-national perspectives’, but the emphasis on the search for causality in much previous research has not enabled a closer look at some other qualitative factors such as culture in the examination of the psychological contract. Therefore, this paper's contribution is to delve into such qualitative parameters particularly in the developing world where limited research on psychological contract has been conducted.

The psychological contract, unlike expectations, entails a belief in what the employer is obliged to provide, based on perceived promises of reciprocal exchange (Robinson and Rousseau, 1994). In approaching the psychological contract, one needs to consider whether this is about the promise that is believed to be made to the other party in an exchanged relationship or whether the psychological contract is about an obligation that one party in the relationship thought that they have towards the other party. When employees join organisations a formal and written employment contract is often made. The terms of that contract elucidate what both parties (the employees and their employing organisations) will receive in return for the fulfilment of their obligations. For example, the organisation offers pay, training, respect and promotion, etc. in return for employees’ offer of flexibility, effort, creativity and skills. However, when some obligations are not documented, these form the content of the psychological contract. The psychological contract, thus, is much broader than legal employment contracts where employee can only consciously think of a few elements of the contact (Kotter, 1973). Most perspectives on the psychological contract recognise its subjective nature and legitimised ‘in the eye of the beholder’ (Rousseau and McLean Parks, 1993).

In the psychological contract process one party attempts to interpret and understand the psychological standpoint of the other party. Such interpretations will remain subjective and incomplete (Conway and Briner, 2005), especially when the cultural context and the cultural backgrounds of participants to the psychological contract are considered. As most psychological contract researchers so far emanate from the developed world, this origin is likely to influence the way PC is conceptualized. This then calls for fresh input into the understanding of PC, particularly with globalisation and its ensuing complexities. According to Welch (2003), psychological contracts have resurfaced as an explanatory determinant of employee reactions and workplace relationships which are connected to the somewhat universal changes that now define 21^st century organisations.

Although the research context (e.g. Business and labour conditions, workplace characteristic or individuals) and sector (e.g. private sector) might be similar for the researchers, the result in relation to the understanding of the psychological contract is likely to be different because the psychological contract might be conceptualized differently in the developing world given the persistence of significant cultural differences (Thomas, 2003) despite the advances of globalisation. To further clarify this issue, it is important for research to apprehend what the psychological contract in various sociocultural contexts. Defining psychological contract is becoming more and more elusive despite many papers published in this area; this is owing to the complexity of socioeconomic, cultural and political contexts, etc. as well as the unpredictability of contemporary workplaces and relations.