Picture an employee logging into a virtual meeting at 8 a.m. sharp. They deliver results consistently, adapt to new tools, and stay available long after hours. In return, they expect more than a paycheck: recognition, fairness, and a sense that their effort matters. The employer, meanwhile, believes that providing flexible work, health coverage, and career opportunities should secure loyalty. Neither side has written these expectations into the employment contract, yet both rely on them.

Work, like society, is built on an unspoken pact-a set of mutual obligations that go beyond the legal contract. Break it and trust collapses. Honor it, and both sides thrive.

Philosophers from Hobbes to Rousseau argued that societies exist because individuals trade some freedom for protection, order, and mutual benefit. This social contract keeps communities stable. In the workplace, a parallel exists: employees and employers shape an ongoing exchange of trust, reciprocity, and fairness. It is less visible than an offer letter but often more powerful in determining engagement, performance, and retention.

The challenge today is that this contract is being rewritten. Hybrid work, generational shifts, and new technologies are reshaping what employees expect and what organizations can provide. No longer is employee experience EX about perks or policies but about redesigning the modern social contract at work.

From Hobbes to Rousseau: The Roots of the Contract

The idea of a contract between individuals and authority has shaped political philosophy for centuries. Thomas Hobbes described a world where life without order was “nasty, brutish, and short.” In his view, people surrendered freedom to a sovereign in exchange for security. Translated into the workplace, this reflects a model where employees obey in return for stability and protection.

John Locke offered a different perspective. He emphasized consent, rights, and property. Applied to work, this view suggests employees expect recognition, a voice in decisions, and ownership over their contributions. Organizations, in turn, must respect these expectations to maintain legitimacy.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau advanced the idea further by focusing on collective benefit. For him, the contract was not just about individual protection or property, but about creating a community where the common good guided decisions. Within organizations, this aligns with cultures that prioritize shared purpose and mutual growth.

Behavioral science builds on these philosophical foundations. The modern concept of the psychological contract captures the implicit expectations between employer and employee. Unlike legal agreements, these expectations are informal, yet they strongly influence motivation, trust, and engagement.

The Psychological Contract in Modern Workplaces

In organizational behavior, the psychological contract refers to the unwritten expectations that shape the relationship between employee and employer. These expectations often cover fairness, recognition, growth opportunities, and respect. They are rarely formalized, yet they strongly influence how people feel about their work.

When employees believe the contract is honored, they show higher commitment, stronger engagement, and a greater willingness to go beyond basic responsibilities. When they perceive a breach, such as promises of development not being kept or contributions going unnoticed, trust declines quickly. Research shows that violations of the psychological contract are a major predictor of disengagement and turnover intentions.

The contract is not static. It evolves as organizations grow, as markets shift, and as employees move through different career stages. For example, early-career employees often value opportunities to learn and advance, while more experienced professionals may prioritize autonomy, stability, or balance. Leaders who fail to recognize these shifts risk creating a gap between what employees expect and what the organization delivers.

This dynamic makes the psychological contract one of the most critical elements of employee experience. It defines whether employees feel that the relationship is reciprocal or transactional, sustainable or fragile.

How the Contract is Being Redrawn

The conditions of work are shifting, and so are the expectations tied to the workplace contract. Several forces are reshaping what employees believe they are owed and what organizations can reasonably provide.

The pandemic accelerated demand for flexibility. Remote and hybrid arrangements are no longer seen as optional benefits but as part of the baseline deal. Employees expect autonomy in deciding where and when they work, while employers expect accountability and productivity regardless of location.

Generational change is also altering the balance. Younger employees, particularly Gen Z, place high value on transparency, equity, and a sense of purpose. They are less willing to accept vague promises and more likely to leave if they perceive misalignment between stated values and lived reality.

Technology is another factor. Automation and artificial intelligence are reshaping roles and skills at a rapid pace. Employees expect support in adapting to these shifts, including reskilling opportunities and clarity on how their contributions will evolve. Employers, in return, look for adaptability and a willingness to learn.

Economic pressure adds another layer. Organizations are under constant pressure to optimize costs and increase efficiency. Employees, however, see stability, fair compensation, and well-being as central to the deal. Balancing these competing needs requires careful communication and deliberate design of employee experience.

The result is a workplace contract that looks very different from the one that existed even a decade ago. What once centered on stability and hierarchy now rests on flexibility, transparency, and mutual adaptation.

When the Contract Breaks

Workplace trust erodes most visibly when the social contract is violated. These moments often leave stronger impressions than years of positive experience, because people weigh losses more heavily than gains.

Layoffs announced without clear communication are a common example. Employees may accept the need for restructuring, but sudden decisions without context create feelings of betrayal. Another form of rupture is “quiet quitting,” where employees withdraw discretionary effort because they feel their contributions are not valued or reciprocated.

Surveillance technologies also highlight the fragility of trust. When organizations rely on excessive monitoring to track productivity, employees interpret it as a lack of confidence. This mirrors Michel Foucault’s reflections on control and Bentham’s Panopticon, where constant visibility shifts power dynamics and undermines autonomy.

Behavioral science explains these reactions through concepts like fairness bias and loss aversion. People are highly sensitive to perceived injustice, and they respond strongly when expectations of reciprocity are not met. Once trust is broken, rebuilding it requires more effort than maintaining it in the first place.

A broken contract does not always result in immediate resignations. Often it manifests in disengagement, reduced creativity, or a decline in collaboration. These hidden costs accumulate over time, weakening the organization’s ability to innovate and retain talent.

Reimagining the Workplace Social Contract

Repairing or strengthening the workplace contract requires deliberate choices. Leaders cannot rely only on formal policies or compensation to maintain trust. They must design an environment where expectations are clear, fair, and mutually reinforcing.

Several principles can guide this process:

1. Transparency: Clear communication about decisions, expectations, and trade-offs helps employees understand the rationale behind organizational actions. Ambiguity fuels distrust, while openness builds credibility.
2. Reciprocity: Employees expect their contributions to be met with recognition and meaningful returns. This does not always mean financial rewards. Growth opportunities, support for well-being, and visible appreciation are equally important.
3. Autonomy with Support: Flexibility in how work is done signals trust, but it must be paired with resources and guidance. Autonomy without support creates stress, while autonomy with clear structures fosters engagement.
4. Shared Purpose: A contract grounded in collective benefit aligns personal growth with organizational goals. Employees are more likely to invest effort when they see how their work contributes to something larger.

Behavioral science offers tools to reinforce these principles. Recognition systems can nudge managers to acknowledge contributions consistently. Feedback loops can highlight early signs of misalignment before they escalate. Small interventions, when sustained, strengthen the sense of fairness and reciprocity.

Reimagining the contract is not a one-time initiative. It is an ongoing process that evolves with shifts in the workforce and the broader environment. Leaders who treat it as dynamic are more likely to sustain trust and engagement over time.

The Future of Work as a Collective Agreement

The direction of work is moving toward models that resemble communities more than hierarchies. Employees want to feel part of an organization where their voice matters, where fairness is practiced, and where growth is shared. Employers benefit when this sense of community translates into commitment, innovation, and resilience.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s emphasis on collective good provides a useful frame. A workplace thrives when individual and organizational interests are aligned around a shared purpose. When this alignment weakens, the contract starts to fracture. When it is strong, the organization operates less as a set of transactions and more as a community with common goals.

Employee experience is central to this shift. Designing for experience means shaping every interaction, from onboarding to career development to exit, in ways that reflect transparency, reciprocity, and purpose. Technology can support this process, but it cannot replace the need for human connection and fairness in decision-making.

The workplace of the future will demand adaptability, but it will also demand trust. Employees will continue to expect flexibility, meaningful work, and opportunities to grow. Employers will continue to expect commitment, learning, and results. Balancing these expectations is the essence of the collective agreement.

Organizations that treat the workplace contract as an evolving dialogue, rather than a fixed set of obligations, will be better positioned to attract and retain talent. They will also build the resilience needed to navigate uncertainty.

---