INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 245
www.rsisinternational.org
Work Centrality and Psychological Contracts in Remote Academia a
Post-Covid Conceptual Analysis
Niku1, Ipshita Bansal2
Bhagat Phool Singh Mahila Vishwavidyalaya, Sonipat, Haryana, India
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2025.1210000025
Received: 12 Oct 2025; Accepted: 19 Oct 2025; Published: 29 October 2025
ABSTRACT
Objectives:
This conceptual paper examines the evolving dynamics of psychological contracts and work centrality within
higher education institutions (HEIs) in the post-COVID context. It aims to: (1) analyse how remote and hybrid
work have reshaped psychological contracts in academia; (2) investigate the moderating influence of work
centrality on employee engagement and organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB); and (3) propose an
integrative conceptual framework linking psychological contract management (PCM), work centrality, and
institutional sustainability.
Methods:
Adopting a conceptual and theory-driven approach, this study integrates insights from Social Exchange
Theory (SET) and Human Capital Theory (HCT). A comprehensive synthesis of existing literature on
psychological contracts, work centrality, and remote academic work underpins the development of a multi-
level conceptual model. The framework positions PCM as a key antecedent of engagement and OCB, with
work centrality acting as a moderator and sustainability outcomes (social, economic, and environmental) as
the ultimate institutional objectives.
Results:
The analysis indicates that effective PCM fosters employee engagement and OCB, particularly among
academics with high work centrality. These behaviours enhance institutional trust, innovation, and resilience,
aligning with the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) framework. The model highlights that fulfilled psychological
contracts strengthen reciprocity and discretionary behaviours, thereby promoting long-term institutional
sustainability.
Conclusions:
Psychological contract management functions as a strategic enabler for sustainable higher education. By
ensuring fairness, recognition, and flexibility, HEIs can align employee expectations with institutional goals,
enhancing engagement and commitment. Future empirical research should validate the proposed framework
across diverse academic and cultural contexts to substantiate its applicability and impact.
Keywords: Psychological Contract; Work Centrality; Employee Engagement; Organizational Citizenship
Behaviour; Sustainability
INTRODUCTION
The landscape of higher education was irrevocably altered by the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 246
www.rsisinternational.org
pandemic reshaped work practices globally, and higher education institutions (HEIs) were no exception. As
campuses closed and teaching, research, and administration shifted online, the very nature of academic work
underwent a profound transformation (Crawford et al, 2020). Universities worldwide now operate in a new
normal, where teaching, administration, and research collaboration are increasingly conducted in digital
spaces. Faculty and staff had to renegotiate not only their roles and responsibilities but also their implicit
psychological contracts with their institutions. The remote environment, however, disrupts these established
norms. It offers tantalizing opportunities for flexibility and autonomy but also carries the risk of professional
isolation, blurred boundaries, and a potential breach of the delicate trust that underpins the academic
psychological contract.
This paper aims to conceptualize how the rise of remote and hybrid work is transforming these core elements
of academic life. We explore the dynamic interplay between psychological contracts and work centrality in
this new context and consider how these dynamics ultimately influence faculty engagement, organizational
citizenship behaviours (OCB), and the long-term sustainability of higher education institutions (HEIs). This
paper argues that the intersection of psychological contracts and work centrality provides a powerful lens
through which to understand the evolving dynamics of academic work in the post- pandemic era. By
conceptualising how fulfilled or breached psychological contracts influence engagement and organisational
citizenship behaviours (OCB), moderated by work centrality, this study highlights a pathway for HEIs to
sustain innovation, commitment, and long-term growth.
Research Objectives: To examine how remote and hybrid work has reshaped psychological contracts in
HEIs. To explore the role of work centrality as a moderator in employee engagement and OCB. To propose a
conceptual framework linking psychological contract management, work centrality, and institutional
sustainability.
LITERATURE REVIEW:
2.1 Psychological Contracts in Higher Education:
The psychological contract refers to the implicit, often unspoken expectations employees and employers hold
regarding mutual obligations (Rousseau, 1995). Unlike formal employment contracts, PCs are subjective and
evolve over time through social interactions, organisational culture, and individual experiences (Conway &
Briner, 2005). In higher education, psychological contracts encompass expectations of academic freedom,
recognition, fair workload distribution, career progression opportunities, and institutional support for teaching
and research (Decramer, Smolders, & Vanderstraeten, 2013). When these expectations are fulfilled,
employees report higher engagement, trust, and willingness to engage in discretionary behaviours that benefit
the institution (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994; Zhao et al, 2007). Conversely, psychological contract breaches
perceived failures by the institution to honour its implicit commitments lead to disappointment, withdrawal
behaviours, and reduced OCB (Morrison & Robinson, 1997). In the context of remote work, the PC is
reshaped. Faculty members now expect technological support, flexible policies, fair recognition of online
teaching efforts, and clear communication from administrators (Watermeyer et al, 2021). Institutions that fail
to meet these expectations risk eroding trust and engagement, even if formal contractual obligations remain
unchanged.
2.2 Work Centrality in Academic Contexts:
Work centrality (WC) reflects the degree to which work forms a central part of one’s self- concept and
identity (Paullay et al, 1994). Individuals with high WC see work not only as a source of income but also as a
vital element of their purpose and self-worth. Those with low WC, in contrast, prioritise non-work domains
and may regard employment primarily as a means of material survival. In academia, work centrality is often
pronounced. Faculty identities are closely tied to teaching excellence, research outputs, and professional
recognition (Marginson, 2016). However, the shift to remote and hybrid work has disrupted these identities.
For some, the flexibility of remote work has deepened their attachment to academic roles by offering
autonomy and expanded opportunities for international collaboration. For others, the isolation and blurred
work-life boundaries have weakened the salience of academic work in their self-concept (Saragih, 2020). This
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 247
www.rsisinternational.org
variability in WC matters because it shapes how academics respond to psychological contracts. For example,
a high-WC academic who perceives institutional support may reciprocate with extraordinary commitment and
OCB. Conversely, a low-WC academic facing a perceived breach may disengage more readily. Thus, WC
may act as a moderator in the PC– outcome relationship.
2.3 Remote Work and Higher Education Post-COVID:
The pandemic forced a mass experiment in remote delivery for HEIs. While the initial crisis mode has
subsided, hybrid and fully remote models have become embedded features of the sector. This brings distinct
challenges, including digital fatigue, the difficulty of switching off when home becomes the office, and the
erosion of the informal collegiality that sparks collaboration and provides social support. Yet, it also presents
significant opportunities more flexible and accessible education, the potential for global research
collaborations unhindered by geography, and for some, a better integration of work and personal life.
Crucially, remote work alters the implicit exchange of trust, visibility, and support. The tradit ional sight-based
accountability of being on campus is replaced by a system requiring greater trust in output and results,
fundamentally changing the academic-institution relationship.
2.4 OCB and Institutional Sustainability:
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) encompasses voluntary, discretionary actions that are not part of
an academic’s formal job description but that promote the effective functioning of the organization (Organ,
1997). Examples include helping colleagues with their teaching load, voluntarily mentoring junior faculty,
sharing resources, and participating in committee work with a positive spirit.
We propose that when psychological contracts are fulfilled and work centrality is high, faculty are more likely
to exhibit strong OCB. This, in turn, directly contributes to an institution’s sustainability. In this context,
sustainability is multidimensional it involves social sustainability (fulfilling SDG 4 through quality education
and SDG 8 through decent work), economic sustainability (retaining talented staff and maintaining
reputation), and effective governance (SDG 16) through collaborative and ethical institutional management
sustainability (retaining talented staff and maintaining reputation), and effective governance (SDG 16)
through collaborative and ethical institutional management.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND:
To examine the interplay between psychological contracts, work centrality, and remote academic work, this
study draws on Social Exchange Theory (SET) and Human Capital Theory (HCT).
3.1 Social Exchange Theory (SET)
(Blau, 1964) provides a foundational logic. It posits that relationships are built on a pattern of reciprocal
exchanges. When an HEI fulfils its obligations by providing digital tools, recognizing effort, and ensuring fair
workload academics feel a normative obligation to reciprocate with greater engagement, commitment, and
OCB.
3.2 Human Capital Theory
(Schultz, 1961) frames academics as valuable assets in whom the institution invests. Effective management of
PCs and the nurturing of WC are strategic investments that enhance the returns on this human capital, leading
to greater innovation, teaching quality, and research output. HCT therefore positions work centrality as a
critical factor in determining whether HEIs can effectively leverage their academic workforce for
sustainability and innovation.
3.3 Integrating the Theories:
Together, SET and HCT provide a robust theoretical foundation for the proposed framework. SET highlights
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 248
www.rsisinternational.org
the relational dynamics of trust, reciprocity, and fairness in managing psychological contracts, while HCT
underscores the strategic value of employee engagement and identity in sustaining organizational outcomes.
By integrating these perspectives, this paper argues that the effective management of psychological contracts,
moderated by work centrality, enables HEIs to maximize human capital contributions and foster sustainable,
innovative institutions.
Conceptual Framework:
The dynamic environment of higher education requires institutions to rethink how they engage and sustain
their academic workforce. Based on the reviewed literature and theoretical grounding, this paper proposes a
conceptual framework that links psychological contract management (PCM), work centrality, and employee
outcomes to broader sustainability outcomes in higher education institutions (HEIs).
4.1 Core Proposition
The central premise is that effective management of psychological contracts enhances employee engagement
and organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB). These outcomes are further shaped by the degree of work
centrality among academic staff, which influences how strongly individuals respond to fulfilled or breached
expectations. In turn, heightened engagement and OCB contribute to sustainability outcomes social,
economic, and environmental in HEIs.
4.2 Key Constructs:
1. Psychological Contract Management (PCM): Refers to the institutional practices that clarify expectations,
ensure fairness, provide recognition, and support academic career development (Conway & Briner, 2005).
PCM is crucial in remote and hybrid work contexts, where ambiguity and disconnection can easily erode trust
(Bal et al, 2013).
2. Work Centrality: Denotes the importance of work in an individual’s life relative to other domains (Paullay
et al, 1994). For academics, high work centrality manifests as strong professional identity, dedication to
research/teaching, and willingness to go beyond formal job requirements.
Employee Outcomes:
Engagement Characterized by vigour, dedication, and absorption in work tasks (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004).
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) Includes altruism, conscientiousness, civic virtue, and
sportsmanship, which contribute to institutional effectiveness (Organ, 1997).
Sustainability Outcomes
Social: Enhanced trust, collaboration, and improved teaching quality.
Economic: Reduced turnover, higher productivity, and efficient resource use.
Environmental: Stronger faculty support for green initiatives and sustainability curricula (Lozano et al, 2014).
4.3 Propositions:
Drawing on Social Exchange Theory (SET) and Human Capital Theory (HCT), the framework suggests the
following propositions
1. P1 Effective PCM positively influences employee engagement and OCB.
2. P2 Work centrality strengthens the relationship between PCM and employee outcomes; when work is
central to identity, fulfilled PCs have stronger positive effects.
3. P3 Employee engagement and OCB act as mediators between PCM and sustainability outcomes.
4. P4 Trust and perceived organizational support further mediate the relationship between PCM and
employee outcomes.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 249
www.rsisinternational.org
5. P5 Leadership style (transformational vs. transactional), organizational culture, and digital readiness
moderate the strength of PCM’s effects.
4.4 Conceptual Model
The framework is visually represented in Figure It positions PCM as the antecedent, engagement and OCB as
mediators, work centrality as a moderator, and sustainability outcomes (social, economic, environmental) as
the ultimate results.
Figure 1: conceptual Framework Linking psychological Contract Management to organizational
Citizenship Behavior
DISCUSSION:
5.1 Contribution to Literature
This paper extends psychological contract (PC) research by positioning it not only as a micro- level construct
affecting individual employee attitudes but also as a strategic enabler of institutional sustainability. While
prior studies have shown that fulfilled psychological contracts improve employee trust and engagement
(Robinson & Rousseau, 1994; Zhao et al, 2007), this paper innovates by explicitly linking PC management
with sustainability outcomes in higher education institutions (HEIs). Moreover, by incorporating work
centrality as a moderating factor, the framework recognizes the unique nature of academic work. Faculty
members often identify deeply with their professional roles, and this centrality shapes how they perceive and
respond to institutional obligations (Paullay et al, 1994). This adds nuance to the traditional PC-OCB
relationship, which has not been sufficiently explored in higher education contexts. The integration of Social
Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964), Human Capital Theory (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004), and the Triple Bottom
Line framework (Lozano et al, 2014) also advances theoretical discussions by connecting micro-level HR
processes with macro-level sustainability goals. In doing so, the model broadens the lens through which
organizational behaviour and higher education management are studied.
Practical Implications
For HEI leaders, managing psychological contracts effectively is more than an HR function it is a strategic
management practice. Transparent communication about workload expectations, equitable recognition
systems, and career development support can minimize breaches and reinforce employee commitment
(Decramer, Smolders, & Vanderstraeten, 2013). The proposed framework also underscores the importance of
employee engagement and OCB as drivers of institutional resilience. Faculty and staff who feel their implicit
expectations are acknowledged are more willing to experiment with innovative pedagogies, pursue
Perceived
Organizatioa
l Support
Organizatioa
l Culture
Trust
Leadership
Style
Psychologica
l Contract
Management
(PCM)
Employee
Engagement
Organizationa
l Citizenship
Behavior
(OCB)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 250
www.rsisinternational.org
interdisciplinary grants, and build community partnerships. These discretionary behaviours directly contribute
to HEIs’ ability to adapt to global challenges and maintain sustainable operations.
5.3 Policy Implications
At the policy level, governments and accreditation bodies can integrate psychological contract considerat ions
into higher education quality assurance frameworks. For example, national rankings and audits could assess
metrics related to staff engagement, fair employment practices, and participatory governance. Such systemic
attention would incentivize HEIs to adopt sustainable HR practices aligned with the Sustainable Development
Goals (United Nations, 2015). This approach aligns especially with SDG 4 (quality education), SDG 8 (decent
work and economic growth), and SDG 16 (peace, justice, and strong institutions). By embedding PC
management in higher education policy, institutions can more directly contribute to achieving these goals.
5.4 Innovating Management through PC
Traditionally, HEI management has relied heavily on formal rules and structures. The framework proposed
here advocates for a dual approach combining formal structures with psychological contract management
innovations such as
• Participatory decision-making to preserve academic autonomy.
• Recognition systems that value both teaching and research contributions.
• Flexible workload arrangements that respond to post-pandemic realities.
These practices not only strengthen employee commitment but also lay the foundation for entrepreneurial
universities, where staff are motivated to engage in innovation and community- driven projects (Altbach,
Reisberg, & Rumbley, 2019).
5.5 Psychological Contract as a Driver of Sustainability:
By fulfilling the implicit expectations of employees, HEIs can activate a cycle of reciprocity in which
engagement and OCB flourish. In turn, these behaviours advance sustainability outcomes
• Social sustainability: faculty invest more in student learning and collaborative culture.
• Economic sustainability: reduced turnover and greater productivity strengthen institutional stability.
• Environmental sustainability: engaged staff champion green initiatives and embed sustainability into
curricula.
Thus, psychological contract management is not peripheral but central to higher education’s sustainability
agenda.
REFLECTION AND CONCLUSION
6.1 Reflection
The rapid transformation of higher education has created both opportunities and challenges for institutional
leaders, faculty, and policymakers. This paper has argued that psychological contract management (PCM)
when understood as a strategic practice has the potential to shape not only employee outcomes but also the
broader sustainability agenda of higher education institutions (HEIs). By integrating psychological contract
theory, work centrality, and organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) with the sustainability framework of
the Triple Bottom Line (TBL), this study provides a novel lens through which to view human resource
management in HEIs. The reflection emerging from this work is clear institutions often invest in physical
infrastructure and curriculum reforms, but the implicit, psychological relationship between employees and
their institutions remains underexplored, despite being central to institutional resilience In reflecting on this
model, it becomes evident that trust, fairness, and recognition are not abstract ideals; they are practical levers
that shape how employees perceive their roles and how far they are willing to go beyond formal duties. When
employees feel valued and their implicit expectations are acknowledged, engagement and OCB rise,
translating into tangible sustainability outcomes. This reflection underscores the urgent need to reframe HEI
management practices from transactional to relational and balanced approaches.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 251
www.rsisinternational.org
IN CONCLUSION
A framework connecting psychological contract management, job centrality, and employee outcomes (OCB
and engagement) to sustainability outcomes in HEIs was presented in this conceptual study. By emphasizing
the strategic significance of PCM in institutional sustainability, the framework contributes to the body of
literature. • Outlining work centrality as a mediator that influences the association between PC and employee
outcomes. • Linking HR practices at the micro level to sustainability outcomes at the macro level, using the
TBL framework, Human Capital Theory, and SET as a guide.
Practically speaking, the study offers university administrators useful advice on how to promote engagement
and motivate employees to go above and beyond the call of duty by implementing open lines of
communication, equitable workload regulations, and recognition systems. These methods are essential for
creating innovative, entrepreneurial, and long-lasting organisations. From a policy viewpoint, incorporating
psychological contract concerns into frameworks for evaluating higher education might help institutions
connect their practices with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), especially SDG 16 (strong
institutions), SDG 8 (decent work), and SDG 4 (excellent education). The work needs empirical validation,
nevertheless, because it is conceptual in nature. The suggested links should be tested longitudinally in a
variety of cultural and policy contexts in future studies. They should also look at how PC-driven involvement
translates into particular sustainability behaviours like green campus initiatives or sustainability-focused
curricula. This study concludes by presenting psychological contract management as a calculated route to
long-term growth in higher education. A resilient workforce that actively supports instructional quality,
research innovation, and the global sustainability agenda can be developed by HEIs by coordinating
institutional policies with employee expectations.
Future Work:
This conceptual paper lays out a number of potential lines of inquiry. First, the evolution of psychological
contracts during institutional changes like funding reforms, digital transformation, or post-pandemic recovery
should be monitored by longitudinal study. This would offer a more profound comprehension of the gradual
development of trust and commitment. Second, considering the disparities in educational systems and cultural
norms among nations, cross-cultural comparisons can show how work centrality and PC judgements differ.
Lastly, future research might concentrate on particular sustainability goals, such the ways in which motivated
staff members support inclusive education, green initiatives, or social innovation projects.
In summary, empirical validation of the ways in which psychological contract management propels creative
and sustainable higher education institutions should be the focus of future research in order to close the gap
between theory and practice.
REFERENCES
1. Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. E. (2019). Trends in global higher education: Tracking an
academic revolution (Vol. 22). Brill.
2. Bal, P. M., De Lange, A. H., Jansen, P. G., & Van Der Velde, M. E. (2013). A longitudinal study of
age-related differences in reactions to psychological contract breach. Applied Psychology, 62, 157–
181.
3. Blau, P. (2017). Exchange and power in social life. Routledge.
4. Conway, N., & Briner, R. B. (2005). Understanding psychological contracts at work: A critical
evaluation of theory and research. Oxford University Press.
5. Crawford, J., Butler-Henderson, K., Rudolph, J., Malkawi, B., Glowatz, M., Burton, R., . . . Lam, S.
(2020). COVID-19: 20 countries’ higher education intra-period digital pedagogy responses. Journal of
applied learning & teaching, 3, 1–20.
6. Decramer, A., Smolders, C., & Vanderstraeten, A. (2013). Employee performance management
culture and system features in higher education: relationship with employee performance
management satisfaction. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24, 352–371.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 252
www.rsisinternational.org
7. Lee, B. X., Kjaerulf, F., Turner, S., Cohen, L., Donnelly, P. D., Muggah, R., . . . others. (2016).
Transforming our world: implementing the 2030 agenda through sustainable development goal
indicators. Journal of public health policy, 37, 13–31.
8. Lozano, R., Lukman, R., Lozano, F. J., Huisingh, D., & Lambrechts, W. (2013). Declarations for
sustainability in higher education: becoming better leaders, through addressing the university system.
Journal of cleaner production, 48, 10–19.
9. Marginson, S. (2016). The worldwide trend to high participation higher education: Dynamics of
social stratification in inclusive systems. Higher education, 72, 413–434.
10. Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how
psychological contract violation develops. Academy of management Review, 22, 226–256.
11. Organ, D. W. (2014). Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up time. In
Organizational citizenship behavior and contextual performance (pp. 85–97). Psychology Press.
12. Paullay, I. M., Alliger, G. M., & Stone-Romero, E. F. (1994). Construct validation of two instruments
designed to measure job involvement and work centrality. Journal of applied psychology, 79, 224.
13. Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception
but the norm. Journal of organizational behavior, 15, 245–259.
14. Rousseau, D. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten
agreements. Sage.
15. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with
burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International
Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 25, 293–315.
16. Schultz, T. W. (1961). Investment in human capital. The American economic review, 51, 1–17.
17. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development.
United Nations. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
18. Zhao, H. A., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. C., & Bravo, J. (2007). The impact of psychological
contract breach on work-related outcomes: a meta-analysis. Personnel psychology, 60, 647–680.