Original Research

When promises matter more than fairness: The dominant role of the psychological contract in driving organisational citizenship behaviour in a selected South African higher education institution

Linda L. Ratau, Tlou Setati, Harriet Maluka

Received: 09 Dec. 2025; Accepted: 07 July 2026; Published: 18 Sept. 2026

Copyright: © 2026. The Authors. Licensee: AOSIS.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Abstract

Orientation: South African universities increasingly rely on the discretionary efforts of academic staff to maintain high teaching and learning standards, research and innovation and community engagement. Perceived organisational justice has long been related to positive extra-role behaviours, while the role of the psychological contract, which is employees’ beliefs about mutual obligations with their employer, has received less attention as a dominant driver of organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB).

Research purpose: The purpose was to test whether the psychological contract predicts OCB more strongly than organisational justice.

Motivation for the study: Previous research emphasised organisational justice as a key driver of OCB. However, evidence suggests that fulfilled psychological contracts may matter more, especially in universities where resource constraints challenge fair treatment.

Research approach/design and method: A quantitative cross-sectional survey design was applied, and data were collected from 340 academic staff using a structured questionnaire. Data were analysed using the PROCESS macro to test direct effects.

Main findings: The results showed that organisational justice did not significantly predict OCB when the psychological contract was considered. The psychological contract emerged as a strong direct predictor of OCB, explaining a significant portion of its variance.

Practical/managerial implications: Managers in higher education institution should prioritise fulfilling the psychological contract through clear communication and delivery on promises to promote OCB, rather than relying solely on perceived organisational justice.

Contribution/value-add: This study extends the understanding of OCB antecedents by highlighting the dominant role of the psychological contract over organisational justice in a South African university context.

Keywords: organisational citizenship behaviour; psychological contract; organisational justice; higher education institution; South Africa.

Introduction

South African universities play a crucial role in the country’s intellectual, social and economic development by developing skilled graduates, advancing research and driving innovation to address national priorities (Mashwama & Thwala, 2025). To maintain high standards of four academic pillars such as teaching and learning, research and innovation, student mentoring and community engagement, these institutions rely heavily on the willingness of academic staff to engage in organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB) (Singh et al., 2025). Unterhitzenberger and Lawrence (2025) point out that one persistent challenge is managing organisational justice and ensuring that staff perceive fairness in the distribution of resources, recognition and decision-making. When employees perceive unfairness, they may become disengaged (Qin & Zhang, 2022). Researchers such as Ennida et al. (2025), Osman and Yatam (2024) and Singh et al. (2025) indicate that fair organisational practices are crucial for promoting OCB, which benefits the institution through actions such as mentoring students and helping colleagues. Freiha and Sassine (2023) mention that perceptions of organisational justice have been emphasised as primary drivers of OCB because fair processes and treatment build trust and motivate staff to go beyond formal job requirements.

However, recent studies such as Chadha et al. (2025), Foroudi and Fakhreddin (2025) and Santos et al. (2024) highlight that the psychological contract, which refers to the unwritten set of perceived mutual promises and expectations between employer and employee, may play an even more decisive role in shaping discretionary behaviour. In a study conducted by Qurtubi (2025), it was noted that when psychological contracts are honoured, employees are more likely to willingly engage in OCB. In contrast, violations of these contracts can lead to dissatisfaction, distrust, disengagement and increased turnover intentions (David, 2024).

The COVID-19 pandemic intensified these pressures by forcing a sudden shift to remote teaching and learning (Ravi et al., 2021). Turnbull et al. (2021) add that academic employees had to adapt rapidly to new digital platforms, redesign learning materials and offer extra student support, with limited additional resources. The Minister of Higher Education and Training called on universities to implement flexible learning measures and ensure that both academic staff and students were supported during this transition (Department of Higher Education and Training [DHET], 2021). Gong and Sims (2023) stipulate that these sudden shifts exposed gaps between institutional promises and actual support, highlighting the importance of maintaining strong psychological contracts to sustain discretionary effort during uncertain times. Bidarra et al. (2025) report that the South African higher education sector continues to face significant challenges, including the transition from traditional in-person teaching to online and blended learning modalities, resource constraints and the need to support students who are often at risk due to socio-economic barriers.

Against this backdrop, this study aimed to examine whether the psychological contract serves as a stronger predictor of OCB than organisational justice among academic employees in a selected South African higher education institution. The main objective was to investigate whether fulfilling the psychological contract can compensate for perceived unfairness in encouraging discretionary work behaviours in the selected South African higher education institution. The findings provide insights for higher education institutions seeking to strengthen the discretionary effort of academic employees despite ongoing pressures and uncertainties.

Literature review

Organisational justice

The most well-known theories about organisational justice explain how employees perceive fairness within an organisation and how this perception influences their behaviour (Tran, 2025). Organisational justice is commonly divided into three dimensions such as distributive justice, which refers to the fairness of outcomes such as pay or promotions (Donkor & Segbenya, 2023); procedural justice, which concerns the fairness and transparency of the processes used to determine those outcomes (Vaishampayan et al., 2023); and interactional justice, which focuses on the fairness of interpersonal treatment, including respect and clear communication (Kiura & Kim, 2023). Organisational justice is grounded in two key theoretical perspectives, namely Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964) and Equity Theory (Adams, 1963).

Social exchange theory proposes that when employees perceive fair treatment, they feel obligated to reciprocate with positive attitudes and behaviours, such as trust, commitment and OCB (Lavelle et al., 2023). Equity theory focuses more specifically on how employees compare their input, which is the outcome ratio with that of others in the organisation (Tavoletti et al., 2024). This implies that when employees perceive an imbalance, for instance, feeling under-rewarded for their effort compared to colleagues, they are more likely to withdraw their effort altogether. Together, both theories explain why perceptions of distributive, procedural and interactional justice are crucial for building trust and sustaining positive discretionary behaviours like OCB in organisations (Hoare, 2021).

Organisational citizenship behaviour

Organisational citizenship behaviour skills are important in academic institutions (Ramalakshmi & Ravindran, 2021). Organisational citizenship behaviour refers to voluntary and discretionary actions by employees that go beyond their formal job descriptions but support the effective functioning and social environment of the organisation (Hermanto & Srimulyani, 2022). Osman and Yatam (2024) indicate that some examples of OCB include helping colleagues, mentoring students, suggesting improvements and willingly participating in committees or workgroups. Previous research has studied OCB through multiple theoretical viewpoints, with social exchange theory developed by Blau (1964) being one of the most influential (Meira & Hancer, 2021; Wallenburg & Handfield, 2022; Zhu et al., 2023). According to this theory, when employees feel fairly treated and valued by their organisation, they are motivated to reciprocate with positive, extra-role behaviours that benefit the broader workplace (Farid et al., 2023). As such, OCB is often viewed as a visible sign of strong trust and mutual obligation between the employee and the employer (Lu et al., 2024).

Psychological contract

The psychological contract focuses on the unwritten set of mutual expectations and perceived promises that shape the relationship between an employer and an employee (Rousseau, 1995).

Unlike formal employment contracts, which specify tangible job terms, the psychological contract includes informal understandings about support, career development opportunities, recognition and fair treatment (Elsouk et al., 2021). Hoye and Kappelides (2021) highlight that employees tend to form beliefs about what their organisation owes them and what they, in turn, owe the organisation in exchange. This implies that when employees perceive that these promises and expectations are fulfilled, they are more likely to engage in positive discretionary behaviours such as OCB (Foroudi & Fakhreddin, 2025). Conversely, Mitchell (2024) reveals that when employees perceive that these obligations have been broken, feelings of betrayal, dissatisfaction and withdrawal can occur. Social exchange theory underpins the concept of the psychological contract by emphasising that employment relationships are built on trust and reciprocity (Blau, 1964). This suggests that when the balance of give-and-take is maintained through the fulfilment of implicit promises, employees are motivated to go beyond their formal roles and contribute to the success of the organisation (Kim, 2024).

Organisational justice and organisational citizenship behaviour

Bakeer et al. (2021) found that perceptions of organisational justice are positively associated with OCB. When employees believe that policies, procedures and interactions are fair, they are more likely to trust their organisation, feel valued and reciprocate with discretionary behaviours that support the broader work environment (Kyei-Poku, 2025). In Essien and Ogunola’s (2020) view, fair procedures and fair treatment increase employees’ sense of belonging and loyalty, which motivates them to go beyond their formal roles to help the organisation succeed. This may include helping colleagues to complete tasks, volunteering for extra responsibilities or sharing knowledge to improve team performance (Kumar & Brindha, 2023). In the higher education context, for instance, when academic staff perceive that promotion criteria, resource allocation or workload distribution are applied fairly and transparently, they are more willing to mentor students, support peers or participate actively in departmental activities (Osman & Yatam, 2024). The relationship between organisational justice and OCB is consistently explained through social exchange theory, which suggests that employees respond to fair treatment with positive attitudes and behaviours as a form of reciprocation (Ranjit, 2022). Therefore, promoting fairness in formal policies and daily interactions could be an effective way to encourage OCB among academic employees in higher education institutions. Accordingly, it is hypothesised that higher perceptions of organisational justice will encourage academic employees to engage in discretionary behaviours beyond their formal roles. This informs hypothesis 1.

Psychological contract and organisational citizenship behaviour

Foroudi and Fakhreddin (2025) claim that the psychological contract can play a crucial role in shaping employees’ willingness to engage in OCB. This may suggest that when employees believe that their employer honours both the formal and informal promises that form part of the psychological contract, they are more likely to feel valued, trusted and supported, which strengthens their sense of obligation to give back to the organisation in positive ways (Chadha et al., 2025). This sense of reciprocity encourages employees to go beyond their formal job requirements by helping colleagues, offering constructive suggestions or supporting the organisation’s broader mission (Farid et al., 2023; Kim, 2024). Osman and Yatam (2024) add that in the higher education context, this normally includes mentoring students outside scheduled classes, volunteering for academic committees, participating in curriculum development and sharing research resources with peers.

A study conducted by Rysbekova (2023) has shown that when academic employees perceive alignment between what they were promised, such as opportunities for career growth, professional support or recognition and what is actually provided, they tend to demonstrate extra-role behaviours. Conversely, when the psychological contract is perceived as broken or violated, feelings of disappointment and mistrust are likely to discourage such discretionary contributions (Lilly, 2020). The social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) provides a useful lens in the sense that when the mutual obligations within the psychological contract are met, employees feel motivated to reciprocate through OCB, which helps the institution to maintain a positive and supportive work environment (Gardner et al., 2021). Previous studies indicate that fulfilling the psychological contract significantly motivates employees to engage in OCB (Qurtubi, 2025; Rysbekova, 2023). Accordingly, it is proposed that hypothesis 2, states that the psychological contract predicts OCB among academic staff.

Psychological contract and organisational justice as predictors

An individual’s belief about the mutual obligations that exist between employees and their employer is shaped by formal promises, informal understandings and daily interactions at work (Knapp et al., 2024). Foroudi and Fakhreddin (2025) reveal that when employees perceive that these obligations are met, they tend to respond with positive discretionary behaviours that benefit the organisation. On the other hand, organisational justice focuses on how employees perceive fairness in the workplace, specifically the fairness of outcomes, the procedures used to determine those outcomes and the quality of interpersonal treatment (Donkor & Segbenya, 2023; Kiura & Kim, 2023; Vaishampayan et al., 2023). Tran (2025) adds that these perceptions shape how employees judge whether their contributions are valued and whether they are treated with respect and consistency. While both the psychological contract and organisational justice are recognised as important predictors of OCB, Daouk et al. (2021) suggest that the psychological contract may play a role by strengthening the influence of organisational justice on OCB. In other words, this suggests that psychological contract may serve not only as a direct driver of OCB, but also as a potential moderator that strengthens or buffers the relationship between organisational justice and OCB. When employees perceive that their psychological contract is not harmed, they may overlook minor perceived injustices and still engage in OCB; this is because organisational justice is closely linked to the psychological contract, and unfairness usually signals a breach of psychological contracts (Chaudhary et al., 2022). This points to the possibility that if the psychological contract is breached, even fair processes or outcomes may not be enough to encourage extra-role behaviours. This reasoning underpins hypothesis 3, proposing that the psychological contract is a stronger predictor of OCB than organisational justice.

Building on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and equity theory (Adams, 1963), this study proposes that both organisational justice and the psychological contract shape OCB among academic employees in a selected South African higher education institution. While previous researchers such as Essien and Ogunola (2020), Osman and Yatam (2024) and Ranjit (2022) show that perceptions of organisational justice encourage employees to go beyond their formal duties, this study specifically examines whether the psychological contract plays an even stronger role in driving OCB than organisational justice. Based on this background and the main aim of the study, the following hypotheses were formulated:

H1: Organisational justice predicts organisational citizenship behaviour among academic employees in a South African higher education institution.

H2: The psychological contract predicts organisational citizenship behaviour among academic employees in a South African higher education institution.

H3: The psychological contract is a stronger predictor of organisational citizenship behaviour than organisational justice in a South African higher education institution.

Research design

Research approach

A quantitative cross-sectional survey design was applied to examine whether the psychological contract predicts OCB more strongly than organisational justice. This approach allowed the researcher to collect numerical data at a single point in time and to analyse statistical relationships between the study variables. The hypothesised relationships among the study variables are illustrated in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1: Research model.

Research method

Data were collected through a structured questionnaire. The questionnaire included items adapted from existing validated measurement scales reported in the literature to ensure reliability and validity. Closed-ended questions using a Likert-type response format consistent with the original measurement scales were used to capture respondents’ levels of agreement with the statements.

Research respondents

The sample consisted of 340 academic employees from a population of approximately 2942 academic employees at the selected South African higher education institution. Respondents included both permanent and contract academic employees across various faculties and academic ranks, ranging from assistant lecturers to full professors. Respondents were selected using convenience sampling, a non-probability sampling technique in which academic employees who were available and willing to participate during the data collection period were included in the study. To enhance representativeness, respondents were drawn from different employment statuses and academic ranks, and 400 questionnaires were distributed to exceed the minimum recommended sample size of 340 based on the RaoSoft sample size calculator. This approach ensured sufficient coverage of the population, supporting the validity, reliability and generalisability of the study findings. The demographic characteristics of the study participants are presented in Table 1.

Measuring instruments

Three validated scales were used to measure the constructs, namely Organisational Justice scale, the Psychological Contract scale and the OCB scale. The Organisational Justice scale developed by Colquitt (2001) captured distributive, procedural and interactional justice.

Sample items include: ‘My outcomes reflect the effort I have put into my work’ (distributive), ‘Procedures used to make decisions are applied consistently’ (procedural), and ‘My supervisor treats me with respect’ (interactional). Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The scale showed strong internal consistency in the original study (α = 0.84–0.92) and has been validated in multiple subsequent studies (Bakeer et al., 2021; Cheng et al., 2022). The Psychological Contract scale developed by Rousseau (1995) assessed employees’ beliefs about mutual obligations and fulfilment of expectations. Sample items include: ‘My organisation has fulfilled the promises made to me during recruitment’ and ‘I feel obligated to reciprocate the organisation’s support’. Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale. The original scale demonstrated good reliability (α = 0.88) and validity, with subsequent studies confirming its applicability across diverse organisational settings (Freese & Schalk, 2008).

The OCB scale developed by Podsakoff et al. (1990) measured voluntary behaviours beyond formal job duties. Sample items include: ‘I willingly help colleagues who have heavy workloads’ and ‘I attend functions that help the organisation’s image even if not required’.

Items used a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The scale showed high internal consistency (α = 0.88–0.91) and construct validity, supported by subsequent research (Cheng et al., 2022).

Ethical considerations

Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the Department of Industrial Psychology and People Management Research Ethics Committee of the University of Johannesburg (Ref. No. IPPM-2023-733[D]). In addition, gatekeepers’ permission to access academic staff was granted by the relevant institutional authorities. Both approvals were secured prior to data collection to ensure compliance with ethical standards and institutional requirements. Each respondent received an information letter explaining the purpose of the study, ethical considerations and their rights as participants. After reviewing the information and providing written informed consent, respondents were given the structured questionnaire, which they could complete privately and return at their convenience. Respondents were assured that their responses would be treated confidentially, that all completed questionnaires would be securely stored, and that findings would be reported anonymously and in a non-identifiable manner. Participation was voluntary, and respondents could withdraw from the study at any stage without any negative consequences.

Statistical analysis

Data were analysed using IBM (IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, United States) and IBM SPSS Amos version 28 (IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, United States). Descriptive statistics were first conducted to summarise the demographic characteristics of the respondents and to assess the distribution of the data. Prior to factor analysis, the suitability of the dataset was evaluated using the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity to confirm that the data were appropriate for factor analysis. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was then conducted to examine the underlying factor structure of the measurement instruments and to confirm the dimensionality of the scales within the context of academic employees in South Africa. Although the scales had been previously validated in the literature, EFA was performed to verify their structural validity in the current study context.

Reliability analysis was subsequently conducted using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, corrected item-total correlations and Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted to assess the internal consistency of the measurement scales.

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed using AMOS to validate the measurement model and assess the fit of the hypothesised factor structure.

Several model fit indices were evaluated, including the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) and the standardised root mean square residual (SRMR). Finally, structural equation modelling (SEM) was used to test the hypothesised relationships between organisational justice, psychological contract and OCB. In addition, multiple regression analysis using the PROCESS macro was conducted to examine whether organisational justice and psychological contract significantly predicted OCB and to compare the relative strength of these predictors. All statistical analyses were conducted at a 95% confidence level.

Results

The Organisational Justice scale demonstrated excellent sampling adequacy (KMO = 0.96), indicating that the correlations among items were sufficiently strong for factor analysis. Similarly, the Psychological Contract scale achieved a KMO value of 0.830, which falls within the commendable range and confirms the suitability of the data for factor extraction. The results in Table 2 indicate that the sample was adequate for factor analysis, as the KMO values exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.60, and Bartlett’s test was statistically significant. Organisational citizenship behaviour was analysed through its individual subscales; therefore, separate KMO and Bartlett’s test values were reported for each dimension (Table 3). The OCB subscales also demonstrated acceptable KMO values, ranging from 0.642 to 0.737. Furthermore, Bartlett’s test of sphericity was statistically significant for all constructs and subscales (p < 0.001), indicating that sufficient correlations existed among the items to justify factor analysis. These findings confirm the suitability of the measurement instruments for further dimensionality analysis.

The results of the EFA confirmed the dimensionality and structural validity of the organisational justice, psychological contract and OCB constructs. For the organisational justice construct, three factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 were extracted, collectively explaining 58.53% of the total variance, with the first factor accounting for the largest proportion of variance (45.64%). The correlation matrix further revealed moderate to strong positive correlations among most items, supporting the suitability of the construct for factor analysis (Tavakol & Wetzel, 2020). See Table 4.

Similarly, the psychological contract construct demonstrated acceptable dimensionality, with one dominant factor extracted (eigenvalue = 3.829), accounting for 31.91% of the total variance. Factor loadings ranged from 0.500 to 0.642, exceeding the recommended minimum threshold of 0.40 and indicating acceptable item associations with the construct (Sovey et al., 2022). See Table 5. The results in Table 6 further revealed that all five OCB subscales were unidimensional, as only one factor with an eigenvalue greater than 1 was extracted for each subscale.

The extracted factors explained between 33.01% and 47.21% of the total variance, while factor loadings ranged from 0.351 to 0.807, indicating moderate to strong relationships between the items and their respective constructs. Although a few items demonstrated relatively lower loadings, the overall findings support the dimensionality and construct validity of the OCB construct (Tavakol & Wetzel, 2020). The extracted factors and acceptable factor loadings provide evidence that the organisational justice, psychological contract and OCB scales possess satisfactory structural validity and are appropriate for subsequent statistical analyses (Sovey et al., 2022; Tavakol & Wetzel, 2020).

The CFA results indicated that the measurement model demonstrated an acceptable fit to the data based on widely accepted SEM fit criteria. The RMSEA was 0.088, which falls within the marginal or reasonable fit range. Hu and Bentler (1999) state that RMSEA values ≤ 0.06 indicate good fit, while values between 0.06 and 0.08 indicate acceptable fit. However, values up to 0.10 may still be considered reasonable in complex models or in applied social science research where strict cut-off criteria may be overly conservative (Kenny et al., 2015; MacCallum et al., 1996). Given the complexity of the model and the number of latent constructs included, the RMSEA value of 0.088 is therefore interpreted as indicating a reasonable but not excellent fit, which is still acceptable in combination with other fit indices. The comparative fit index (CFI = 0.957), incremental fit index (IFI = 0.958) and normed fit index (NFI = 0.943) all exceeded the recommended threshold of ≥ 0.90 suggested by Hu and Bentler (1999) and Hooper et al. (2008), thereby indicating good model fit. Furthermore, values above 0.95 are often interpreted as evidence of excellent fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999), suggesting that the CFI and IFI reflect a strong model fit. The Tucker–Lewis index (TLI = 0.938) also demonstrated an acceptable level of fit, as values ≥ 0.90 indicate adequate fit and values ≥ 0.95 indicate very good fit (Hooper et al., 2008; Hu & Bentler, 1999). Even though the RMSEA suggests a marginal fit, the convergence of multiple goodness-of-fit indices (CFI, IFI, NFI and TLI) exceeding recommended thresholds provides sufficient evidence that the measurement model demonstrates an acceptable level of fit (Hooper et al., 2008; Hu & Bentler, 1999; MacCallum et al., 1996). The model fit results presented in Table 7 are therefore considered adequate for further structural analysis.

After confirming the factorial validity of the measurement model, reliability analysis was conducted to assess the internal consistency of the scales. The Organisational Justice scale demonstrated excellent reliability (α = 0.928), exceeding the widely accepted minimum threshold of 0.70 for acceptable reliability (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011). Similarly, the Psychological Contract scale showed good internal consistency (α = 0.817), which is above the recommended minimum threshold of 0.70 and therefore indicates satisfactory reliability for research purposes (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011). This suggests that the items within each scale consistently measure their intended latent constructs. The overall OCB scale also demonstrated satisfactory reliability (α = 0.817), which exceeds the widely accepted minimum threshold of 0.70 for acceptable reliability (Hair et al., 2013). According to George and Mallery (2003)’s established psychometric guidelines, Cronbach’s alpha values between 0.70 and 0.79 indicate acceptable reliability, values between 0.80 and 0.89 indicate good reliability, and values of 0.90 and above indicate excellent internal consistency. Therefore, the obtained reliability coefficient suggests that the OCB scale demonstrates good internal consistency, indicating that the items consistently measure the intended construct.

Descriptive statistics were computed to summarise the study variables before testing the structural relationships. As shown in Table 8, OCB recorded the highest mean score (M = 4.19, SD = 7.859), followed by psychological contract (M = 4.10, SD = 8.523) and organisational justice (M = 3.89, SD = 11.526), indicating generally positive perceptions among respondents. Furthermore, the skewness and kurtosis values fell within acceptable ranges, suggesting that the data were approximately normally distributed. All scales demonstrated acceptable reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha values exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.70. In addition, the skewness and kurtosis values fell within acceptable ranges, indicating approximate normality and supporting the use of parametric statistical techniques such as SEM.

After establishing the validity and reliability of the measurement model, SEM was conducted to examine the relationships among organisational justice, psychological contract and OCB. The structural model demonstrated an acceptable overall fit to the data, with model fit indices falling within acceptable ranges (RMSEA = 0.088; CFI = 0.957; NFI = 0.943; IFI = 0.958; TLI = 0.938). The results indicated that organisational justice did not have a statistically significant direct effect on OCB (β = −0.015, p = 0.739). This suggests that perceptions of fairness alone did not significantly influence discretionary behaviours among academic employees in this context. Consequently, Hypothesis 1 was not supported. In contrast, the psychological contract demonstrated a significant positive effect on OCB (β = 0.247, p < 0.001). This finding indicates that when academic employees perceive that mutual obligations between themselves and the organisation are fulfilled, they are more likely to engage in OCBs. The results in Table 9 indicate that organisational justice did not significantly predict OCB, whereas the psychological contract demonstrated a significant positive relationship with OCB.

To further examine the predictive strength of the independent variables, multiple regression analysis using the PROCESS macro was conducted. The results in Table 10 indicate that organisational justice did not significantly predict OCB when the psychological contract was included in the model (B = −0.025, SE = 0.273, t = −0.092, p = 0.927). However, the psychological contract emerged as a significant positive predictor of OCB (B = 1.089, SE = 0.363, t = 3.003, p = 0.003). These results suggest that employees who perceive their psychological contracts as fulfilled are more likely to engage in discretionary behaviours that support the organisation. The overall regression model explained approximately 26% of the variance in OCB (R² = 0.263), indicating that the psychological contract plays a stronger role than organisational justice in predicting OCB among academic employees in this context. The regression model explained approximately 26% of the variance in OCB, indicating that the psychological contract was a stronger predictor of OCB than organisational justice. See Table 10.

Discussion

Outline of the results

The results reveal that the psychological contract plays a stronger and more direct role in predicting OCB among academic staff than organisational justice. The analyses indicated that organisational justice did not significantly influence OCB, whereas the psychological contract demonstrated a significant positive effect on employees’ discretionary behaviour. These results indicate that hypothesis 1, which proposed that organisational justice predicts OCB, was not supported, while hypothesis 2, which proposed that the psychological contract predicts OCB, was supported. In addition, the results confirm hypothesis 3, which proposed that the psychological contract would be a stronger predictor of OCB than organisational justice. These results contribute to the growing body of research suggesting that while fairness perceptions are important in shaping employee attitudes, the perceived fulfilment of mutual obligations between employees and their organisation may play an even more influential role in encouraging discretionary behaviour.

The results are consistent with previous research by Chahar (2019) and Santos et al. (2024), who found that psychological contract fulfilment strengthens employees’ willingness to contribute beyond their formal job responsibilities. In the context of higher education institutions, where academic employees often perform tasks that extend beyond their contractual duties, the perception that the institution honours its commitments appears to be a key driver of voluntary engagement in organisational activities. From a theoretical perspective, these results can be understood through social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), which suggests that workplace relationships are built on reciprocal exchanges between employees and their organisation. When academic employees perceive that their institution fulfils both explicit and implicit obligations such as providing support, recognition and opportunities for development, they may feel a sense of obligation to reciprocate through behaviours that benefit the organisation. These behaviours often take the form of OCBs such as mentoring students, assisting colleagues and participating in departmental initiatives.

The results can also be interpreted through equity theory (Adams, 1963), which proposes that employees evaluate fairness by comparing their inputs and outcomes within the workplace.

While fairness perceptions remain relevant in shaping employee attitudes, the present results suggest that fairness alone may not be sufficient to motivate discretionary behaviour when compared with the broader relational expectations embedded in the psychological contract. In situations where employees perceive that the organisation honours its commitments, they may still be willing to engage in OCB even when some aspects of organisational justice are perceived as less favourable. The descriptive results further support this interpretation, as respondents reported relatively high perceptions of both the psychological contract and OCB, suggesting that academic employees generally perceived that mutual obligations were fulfilled and that they frequently engaged in extra-role behaviours. Although perceptions of organisational justice were also relatively positive, its lack of a significant predictive effect suggests that fairness alone may not be sufficient to motivate discretionary behaviour in this academic context. Instead, the results indicate that the relational and reciprocal expectations embedded in the psychological contract may play a more decisive role in encouraging academic employees to contribute beyond their formal responsibilities.

Practical implications

The results highlight that the psychological contract has a more substantial influence on OCB than organisational justice. This suggests that university leaders should prioritise strategies that actively maintain and strengthen the psychological contract with academic staff. Practical actions include clear, transparent communication about institutional expectations, realistic goal setting and consistent follow-through on promises related to career progression, recognition, workload management and professional support (Gander, 2023; O’Meara et al., 2016). Such initiatives are likely to promote perceptions that the university honours mutual obligations, which in turn encourages academics to engage in voluntary behaviours that benefit the institution, behaviours such as mentoring students, collaborating with colleagues, participating in departmental committees and supporting institutional initiatives (Sewpersad et al., 2019).

Although organisational justice is traditionally associated with positive workplace behaviours, the non-significant effect in this study indicates that fairness alone may not be enough to motivate extra-role behaviours in this context. Therefore, interventions should focus not only on equitable policies and procedures, but also on the consistent fulfilment of implicit promises and mutual expectations that form the psychological contract. This approach is particularly important in South African universities, where resource constraints, transformation pressures and post-pandemic challenges place additional demands on academic staff.

Limitations and recommendations

This study is limited to academic staff at a single South African university and relied on cross-sectional data collected at one point in time. Additionally, convenience sampling was used, which may limit the generalisability of the findings to other higher education institutions.

Future research should replicate this study using random samples across multiple universities to assess whether the relationships hold in different institutional contexts. Longitudinal studies are also recommended to track changes in perceptions of organisational justice and the psychological contract over time and their cumulative impact on OCB.

Conclusion

This study set out to examine whether the psychological contract plays a stronger role than organisational justice in predicting OCB among academic staff in a South African higher education context. The results revealed that while perceptions of fairness such as fair procedures, outcomes and respectful treatment remain important in the workplace, it is the perceived fulfilment of the psychological contract that has a more substantial and direct influence on whether employees are willing to go beyond their formal job responsibilities.

This implies that when academic staff feel that their university honours both the spoken and unspoken promises related to career development, workload balance, recognition and professional support, they are inclined to invest extra effort through voluntary behaviours that favour the institution as a whole. These behaviours, such as mentoring students, supporting colleagues and contributing to departmental activities, are important for ensuring that the university fulfils its core teaching, research and community engagement responsibilities (Haeger & Fresquez, 2016). This focus is particularly important in South African universities, which continue to experience transformation pressures, uncertainties, resource constraints and growing demands for high-quality education in a challenging post-pandemic environment.

Maintaining psychological contracts can help universities develop a committed, resilient and engaged academic workforce that can meet future challenges and sustain long-term success.

Acknowledgements

This article is based on research originally conducted as part of Linda L. Ratau’s doctoral thesis titled ‘Organisational justice and organisational citizenship behaviour: The roles of organisational cynicism and psychological contract at a selected South African university’, submitted to the Faculty of Management and Law, Department of Business Management, University of Limpopo, in 2026. The thesis is currently unpublished and not publicly available. The thesis was supervised by Tlou Setati and Harriet Maluka. The thesis was reworked, revised and adapted into a journal article for publication. The author confirms that the content has not been previously published or disseminated and complies with ethical standards for original publication.

The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.

Linda L. Ratau: Conceptualisation, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft and Writing – review & editing. Tlou Setati: Supervision. Harriet Maluka: Supervision. All authors reviewed the article, contributed to the discussion of results, approved the final version for submission and publication and take responsibility for the integrity of its findings.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are not publicly available but are available from the corresponding author, Linda L. Ratau, upon reasonable request.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency, or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings, and content.

References