A psychological contract perspective to managing the employment relationship during the COVID-19 pandemic in the aviation industry

Abstract Although the literature on psychological contracts is rich, researchers have so far paid limited attention to psychological contracts in times of crisis. To investigate how employees assess their psychological contracts during a crisis, we conducted 32 semistructured interviews during the third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe. The interviewees worked in the airline industry, which the pandemic severely affected. Our qualitative approach allowed us to gain novel insights into the mechanisms by which contracts are managed when the typical parameters of contract assessment are not possible, thereby allowing us to expand psychological contract theory. In addition to illustrating the key employer obligations that employees perceived during a crisis, we introduce two novel theoretical concepts –psychological contract credit and psychological contract inactivation – that explain how employees managed their contracts during the crisis. The practical findings of this study are of relevance to HR managers in managing future crises and addressing the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic.


Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic can undoubtedly be defined as a crisis, which is 'characterized by low probability/high consequence events that threaten the most fundamental goals of an organization' (Weick, 1988, p. 305). While the pandemic has affected almost every industry worldwide, the airline industry is one of the most severely affected. Although the aviation industry has faced wars, terror attacks, fatal accidents, and previous diseases in the past, the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic have been unprecedented. The pandemic completely paralysed air traffic, which had been booming for decades, and travel bans, travel warnings, and entry restrictions also took their toll. Overall, global airlines were forecast to lose $314 billion in revenue in 2020 compared with the previous year . Naturally, these revenue losses threatened-and continue to threaten-many jobs in the industry. According to one estimate in December 2020, approximately 602,500 jobs in the airline industry in Germany alone were potentially at risk due to the pandemic (IATA, 2020).
Since organisations have been forced to adapt at an unforeseen scale and speed, the pandemic offers a unique opportunity to examine how organisations and their employees can best adapt in times of crisis. In such times, the employee psychological contract, defined as 'individual beliefs, shaped by the organization, regarding terms of an exchange agreement between individuals and their organization' (Rousseau, 1995, p. 9), is bound to change. Despite the early acknowledgement that 'change alters the contract' (Morrison, 1994, p. 365), scholars have thus far paid limited attention to psychological contracts in crisis contexts. A few notable exceptions include the work of Metz et al. (2012), who examined employee responses to the global financial crisis, and Katou (2013), who studied the links between HR practices, psychological contract fulfilment, and organisational performance during the economic crisis in Greece and found that the relationship between human resource management (HRM) and performance is weaker in times of economic crisis. Furthermore, Wu et al. (2021) examined psychological contracts in the hospitality industry related to the COVID-19 pandemic and found that employees emphasised transactional contracts to protect their individual interests, whereas employers tried to find a balance between relational and transactional contracts.
However, several key questions about psychological contracts in times of crisis remain: How do employees perceive their psychological contracts when circumstances-the crises-force employers to alter the contract? What can HRM do to maintain psychological contracts in times of crisis? Our research is guided by the following specific question to shed light on crisis management through the lens of psychological contract theory: 'How do employees manage possible contract changes during a crisis when the 'normal parameters' of assessing contract fulfilment are not possible?' We collected data in the airline industry, in which the pandemic left most employees completely without work and dependent on governmental support for a long time in March 2020. The industry started to show the first signs of recovery only in late spring 2021. Our interviews with 14 pilots and 18 flight attendants enabled us to demonstrate how employees assessed and managed their psychological contracts and responded to the HRM practices adopted to manage the COVID-19 crisis.
Our findings contribute to the existing body of knowledge on psychological contracts in times of crisis in the following three ways. First, our findings allow us to extend the present understanding of psychological contracts by introducing the concept of psychological contract credit, whereby in times of crisis, employees can consciously accept a temporary imbalance in the contract favouring the employer that would, in normal times, most likely be considered as a breach or a violation. We also illustrate the conditions under which such credit is more likely to be given. Second, our findings indicate the possibility of psychological contract inactivation, which allows employees to postpone the active maintenance and monitoring of the contract in a crisis context. Finally, by studying airline crew members, our research answers the calls for psychological contract research in underexamined contexts (Bankins, 2015;Shore et al., 2004).

Psychological contract as a mechanism to assess the employment relationship
Employees' psychological contracts specify the inducements they believe their employer owes them and the inducements they believe they owe in return (Robinson et al., 1994). Such contracts are typically transactional or relational (Rousseau, 1990). Transactional psychological contracts involve the exchange of monetisable items, sometimes only in short-term relationships (Robinson et al., 1994), while relational contracts are based on long-term relationships and can involve the exchange of both monetisable and nonmonetisable items, such as training and development (Robinson et al., 1994). In a relational contract, the relationship is open ended, and obligations are less specific. Thus, trust in the goodwill of the exchange partners is important (Coyle-Shapiro & Parzefall, 2008).
A psychological contract can be assessed to be fulfilled, breached, or violated. The underlying explanation for the functioning of the psychological contract is the norm of reciprocity, whereby employees positively or negatively reciprocate psychological contract fulfilment or breach (Coyle-Shapiro & Parzefall, 2008). The fulfilment of the contract captures 'the extent to which one party to the contract deems the other has met its obligations' (Lee et al., 2011, p. 204) and is important to organisations because it contributes favourably to employee attitudes and performance, thereby contributing to organisational performance (Raeder et al., 2012). In contrast, a psychological contract breach is a realisation that the employer has failed to fulfil one or more of its obligations (Morrison & Robinson, 1997). Contract breach differs from violation in that breach captures the cognitive conclusion that obligations have not been fulfilled, whereas violation refers to the emotions, such as distress, anger, or disappointment, that arise when the employer does not keep its part of the deal (Rousseau, 1995). Breach has been theorised to function as a cognitive trigger to a violation, which captures an affective or emotional response (Schuster et al., 2022). Although sometimes used interchangeably in the literature, breach and violation are distinct constructs, and a breach as an acknowledgement of unfulfilled obligations (Coyle-Shapiro & Parzefall, 2008) can occur without the accompanying feeling of a violation that results from 'an event or series of events experienced as losses significant to the employee' (Tomprou et al., 2015). Zhao et al. (2007) concluded in their meta-analysis that affect mediates the effects of psychological contract breach on employee attitudes and behaviours, suggesting that breach as a cognition may lead to an emotional experience of violation (Tomprou et al., 2015).
The consequences of contract breach and violation are known to be negative, and they include, but are not limited to, increased turnover intentions and lowered levels of job satisfaction and commitment (Zhao et al., 2007;Lo & Aryee, 2003). As mentioned above, emotions, or violations, may mediate the relationship between the breach and the attitudinal and behavioural outcomes (Zhao et al., 2007). In addition, breach and violation can affect both parties to the contract, namely employers and employees. The severity of these outcomes largely depends on the quality of the relationship (Dulac et al., 2008;Rousseau, 1995), whereby high relationship quality can act as a buffer against breach perceptions (Dulac et al., 2008). Even partial fulfilment of a psychological contract can serve as a positive indicator regarding employees' confidence in management and a buffer against breach perceptions (Zhao et al., 2007). Past research also has identified different ways in which promises can be broken, such as through delivery delays, shortfalls in the amount received, or mismatches in rewards initially promised and rewards ultimately given (Cassar et al., 2016). Additionally, Parzefall and Coyle-Shapiro (2011) suggested that breach cognition might develop gradually as if there was a tipping point after many small perceived discrepancies. Morrison and Robinson (1997) seminal theory significantly advanced the understanding of breach dynamics. The authors identified reneging and incongruence as explanations for perceived breaches and how the related attributions form. Reneging occurs when the employee believes that the employer is aware of an obligation but fails to deliver it. Consequently, the employee perceives a purposeful and intentional breach. There are, however, occasions when employees may attribute the reasons for reneging to external factors that are beyond the employer's control and are, therefore, perceived as a disruption rather than an intentional incompliance. Incongruence, in turn, occurs when both parties are aware that an obligation exists, but they have different understandings of the obligation or its nature. In other words, perceived breach results from a misunderstanding between the exchange partners. Past work has theorised, and empirical research has demonstrated, that 'a breach that is believed to be intentional has more severe outcomes than a breach that is believed to be caused by environmental factors, or by an honest misunderstanding' (Alcover et al., 2017;Morrison & Robinson, 1997;Parzefall & Coyle-Shapiro, 2011, p. 14;Rousseau, 1995). Furthermore, employees also differ in their vigilance, that is, in the extent to which they monitor their contracts, and a vigilant employee is more likely to detect contract breaches (Morrison & Robinson, 1997).

When psychological contracts and their assessment are altered
Scholars have thus far paid relatively limited attention to how psychological contracts and their assessment evolve over time and change because of critical incidents or crises (Parzefall & Coyle-Shapiro, 2011). However, it has been argued that 'even minor organizational changes will necessitate change to the psychological contract to reflect the new arrangement' (Petrou & Vakola, 2018, p. 103). To date, the existing, albeit limited, research has focused on organisational change as a trigger for the negative assessment of contracts and the consequent changes in its content. In such contexts, employees are likely to attribute a breach to intentional reneging or withdrawal from the deal. For example, Bellou (2006) found that changes accompanying an M&A alter the contract since perceived organisational obligations and contributions both change when the company undergoes an M&A. Baruch and Hind (1999) and Parzefall (2009Parzefall ( , 2012 proposed that, following downsizing, changes occur, and a new psychological contract is formed. Indeed, cost-cutting measures, a common strategy in crisis contexts, can predict contract breach (Conway et al., 2014) or result in feelings of contract violation when employer inducements that are significant to the employee are not received (Rafferty & Restubog, 2017). Overall, organisational change is likely to serve as a breeding ground for perceived breaches (Lo & Aryee, 2003).
However, the question remains, 'How are psychological contracts assessed when the breach occurs because of exogenous shocks that are beyond the employer's control'? A crisis of any scale typically has several negative effects on both organisations and their employees, such as panic inside the organisation, lack of morale and motivation, misinformation, and cancelled training and recruitment (Vardarlier, 2016). Metz et al. (2012), who collected data from Australian managers before and after the global financial crisis, concluded that a crisis causes managers to perceive fewer obligations in terms of the provision of training and development for employees and, overall, to make fewer decisions with the employees' best interests in mind. In line with the norm of reciprocity, employees also adjust their perceived contributions downwards. Katou (2013), who studied the links among HR practices, psychological contract fulfilment, and organisational performance during the economic crisis in Greece, argued that employee attitudes constitute the epicentre of the HRM-performance relationship, concluding that this relationship is weaker in times of financial crisis. Interesting insights also were provided by Wu et al. (2021), who examined a dual perspective of psychological contracts relating to the COVID-19 pandemic in the hospitality industry. The authors found that while employees tried to emphasise transactional contracts to protect their individual interests, employers attempted to find a balance between relational and transactional contracts. Overall, the authors concluded that mutual consideration provides the best approach to moving forward after a crisis.
In light of the above discussion, we argue that the psychological contract concept can provide an illuminating lens for studying employees' perceptions of their employment relationships during a crisis. We are aware that 'the extent of gain or loss to the organisation is determined in part by how effectively the crisis is managed' (Milburn et al., 1983(Milburn et al., , p. 1142. Thus, we examine how employees manage possible contract changes during a crisis when the 'normal parameters' of assessing contract fulfilment are not possible.

Methodology
We opted for qualitative data collection, which is well suited to studying the multifaceted nature of the concept of psychological contracts in a novel context (Conway & Briner, 2005;Diehl & Coyle-Shapiro, 2019). Psychological contract dynamics are complex, and qualitative research enabled us to address 'the psychological contract as a process and [for] highlighting the role of context in exchange relationships' (Coyle-Shapiro & Parzefall, 2008, p. 25;Diehl & Coyle-Shapiro, 2019). Furthermore, it allowed for examining the 'regular or problematic experiences and the meaning attached to these experiences of selected individuals' (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2007, p. 558). Although the norm of reciprocity provides the underlying explanatory mechanism in psychological contracts, our research focuses on the employee interpretation of the exchange relationship in a context that has forced the employer as the exchange partner to change the deal.

Research context
Our interviewees worked for one internationally operating European airline, which employs more than 100,000 employees worldwide. Our interviewees were all based in Germany. In general, the jobs of crew members, consisting of pilots and flight attendants, differ from other jobs in that the roles are not bound to an office, and there is no stable work team (i.e. the colleagues change on every flight). While crew members have a supervisor, they meet the supervisor in person only approximately once a year. A pilot's job, despite the status and prestige typically associated with it (Croxton et al., 1989), is not officially recognised as a profession, making career changes at an advanced age difficult. Moreover, there are several challenging requirements to become a commercial pilot. The most significant hurdle is the selection process, in which approximately 75% of applicants fail in Germany. In total, only approximately 7.5% of applicants are accepted. The training costs approximately €70,000 and lasts 29 months (Plück & Reisener, 2015), underscoring high sunk costs.
Since October 2020, the airline for which our interviewees worked announced that approximately 27,000 jobs would have to be cut due to the COVID-19 pandemic (Tagesschau, 2021). In 2020, after air traffic had collapsed to a fraction of its precrisis level, the governments of four European countries saved their national carriers, including the one for which our interviewees worked, from bankruptcy, with a total aid package worth €9 billion. The government joined the airline as a shareholder and became the group's largest shareholder with a 20% stake (aero.de, 2021).
At the time of the interviews, the cabin crew members had not been dismissed in Germany. However, there had been layoffs in other areas of the company; for example, regional flight attendants in Asia were laid off, and the company's flight school with pilots in training was discontinued. The concept of short-time work was introduced in Germany to safeguard jobs, meaning that private sector employees agreed to, or were forced to accept, a reduction in working time and pay, with the state making up for all or part of the lost wages (called the short-time work benefit). In our case, the carrier guaranteed to contribute additionally to the short-time work benefits from the government. In addition, a crisis-specific collective agreement was signed, protecting employees from layoffs until the end of 2021. In an official short-time work month, pilots are not allowed to engage in any work commitments; hence, they are not assigned to any flights, nor can they even complete an online training module. In most cases, but not all, the short-time work months alternate with regular months.
The arrangement was challenging for flight attendants. They were not assigned a complete short-time work month ahead of time, but they simply waited to be scheduled for work on a short notice. Most pilots and flight attendants have worked quite little since March 2020: At the time of the interviews, of our 32 interviewees, five interviewees had not worked at all since the beginning of the pandemic, while the others had flown occasionally.

Participants and data collection
We conducted 32 semistructured in-depth interviews with flight crew members. We based our data collection on the principle of saturation (Grady, 1998), according to which data saturation is reached when the same comments are heard repeatedly. The interviews followed a broad interview guide informed by psychological contract theory. We asked the interviewees about an employer's most important duties and responsibilities during the crisis. We also covered a range of practical HR crisis management measures and allowed our respondents to assess how their employer had fared in handling the crisis and how they themselves had reacted to and coped with the crisis.
The telephonic interviews lasted, on average, 45 min and were conducted between early February and mid-April 2021, at a time when the crisis was at its peak and Europe was undergoing the third wave of the pandemic. Our interviewees included 18 flight attendants and 14 pilots (14 female and 18 male). They were aged between 21 and 53 and had, on average, been employed by the airline for 15 years (min. five years). All participants underwent the interviews voluntarily and were ensured anonymity. The first interviewees were identified through the authors' personal contacts and then through a 'snowball' system.

Analysis
After the interviews were transcribed, we used NVivo software to code the data. Our analysis followed the principles of template analysis, which combines grounded theory with content analysis because 'the power of grounded theory lies in piecing together a theoretical narrative that has interpretive power' (Gubrium et al., 2012, p. 361). In grounded theory analysis, the coding is performed without the development of a priori codes to construct a theory from the data. Glaser and Strauss (1967) encouraged researchers to use constant comparison, that is, to collect and analyse data simultaneously, a guideline to which we adhered. Contrary to 'pure' grounded theory, template analysis allows for the development of codes prior to the analysis (Brooks et al., 2015). We were interested in how the interviewees managed their psychological contract when the circumstances were such that the typical parameters of assessing the extent of contract fulfilment or violation were not functioning. We initially opted for open coding to highlight similarities and differences in the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). In this first stage of coding, we continuously asked the question, 'What is happening here?' (Charmaz, 2015). By doing so, we stayed close to the original data, and our first-order codes comprised quotes from the respondents; thus, we used in vivo codes. Our first round of coding resulted in 218 codes, which were significantly reduced thereafter.
While examining the data through a psychological contract theory lens, we were open to novel aspects of psychological contracts, especially relating to crises. After the first cycle of coding was complete, we used an axial coding approach to find connections and relationships between the first-order codes. Additionally, we condensed the number of codes significantly and arrived at first-and second-order constructs. To do so, we removed duplicate codes or those we deemed irrelevant because they occurred only at a low frequency. For example, in the first round of coding, 'communication' , 'rumours' , and 'webcasts' emerged, which we then coded into second-order constructs and labelled 'transparent information' . We then continued to group more codes that concerned 'transparent information' as an employer obligation.
The final step involved selective coding, whereby we identified eight overarching categories that we labelled 'second-order categories' . We still reduced these categories to more aggregate concepts. In addition to a crisis-specific psychological contract, we identified what we named psychological contract inactivation and psychological contract credit as the core aggregate concepts. The concept of contract credit became especially and quickly visible during the coding process. Our template analysis approach allowed us to draw on a grounded theory approach, which meant that we remained open to such findings. Although initially covering different aspects, the main message remained the same, and all quotes, including statements such as 'making compromises' and 'we want to participate in the company's success after the crisis' , were linked to the credit concept in the final coding. During the coding, we also relied on memo writing to note relationships between codes and theoretical ideas as they emerged (Lempert, 2007). Figure 1 illustrates the final coding tree.

Findings
Next, we first illustrate what constitutes the key components of what we named the 'crisis-specific psychological contract' . Then, we present our findings on psychological contract inactivation and psychological contract credit as specific mechanisms to maintain or even protect the psychological contract during a crisis.

Key content of the crisis-specific psychological contract
Our respondents unanimously highlighted three employer obligations that can be considered especially important in the crisis context. We named these obligations (a) transparent information, (b) employee well-being, and (c) personalised care. The first obligation concerned not only the heightened need for information but also the underlying mistrust that transparent information could soften. Employee well-being as an obligation broadly captured the interviewees' emphasis on not only the importance of keeping the company alive and securing jobs but also more mundane issues, such as protecting employee health. The third obligation reflected the interviewees' need to be seen as individuals and to be acknowledged as appreciated members of the organisation. These three specific obligations were considered central to maintaining the psychological contract during the crisis. Most respondents believed that their employer had fulfilled these three obligations satisfactorily.

Transparent information
Employees consistently emphasised their need for information but also embraced what the organisation had done to fulfil this expectation. One captain concluded, 'Communication is extremely important during a crisis' and that 'they [the leadership] have really taken well [sic] care of communication' (Interviewee 27,pilot,46). The company had the greatest leverage via its company intranet, through which information was provided several times a day during the peak of the crisis. The introduction of the so-called webcasts, essentially biweekly live streams by the company's upper management, also played a central role. The setup resembled a TV news studio with a host (a company employee) who moderated the discussion and enabled employees to ask the CEO questions anonymously via a messaging tool. In addition, the employees used various other sources of information, including internal emails, exchanges with colleagues, social media, or Google News alerts. Ultimately, employees identified the webcasts as the most important information tool for crisis management: I liked that they just added these questions from the audience, and he [the management representative] answered them. He also risked a bit because he truly had to say something spontaneously. I thought that was good. (Interviewee 32,pilot,53) Although the interviewees expressed satisfaction with the communication, they nevertheless doubted the company's ultimate intentions and long-term plans at times and expressed mistrust. Zhao et al. (2007, pp. 669-670) argued that 'mistrust implies feelings of betrayal and arousals for revenge, and thus it is a more specific response to breach' . Such mistrust reflects the underlying worry and sense of vulnerability that many interviewees experienced and relates to the other crisis-specific psychological contract obligations, namely employee well-being and personalised care. One pilot (Interviewee 30, pilot, 43) explained, 'What we need is information' , but he simultaneously acknowledged, ' At the moment, I find the argumentation and the communication such that it stirs up and promotes a certain fear' . Many interviewees feared that the organisation was using the crisis as a disguise to introduce cost-reduction measures that had been planned for a while or to change long-established collective bargaining agreements. As one interviewee concluded, 'I have the feeling that [the airline] is now taking advantage of this crisis to renegotiate the tariff agreements in its favour, of course. I think that is abusing the crisis slightly' (Interviewee 16, pilot, 33). Therefore, although the general information flow and the innovative ways of reaching out to the employees were appreciated, some doubts remained and undermined how our participants interpreted the employer's ultimate intentions, triggering negative emotions and thereby pointing to a risk of perceived contract violation.

Employee well-being
Employee well-being as an obligation covered several specific factors regarding concern for employee health, such as the introduction of face masks at the right time. However, ultimately, the main issue was the potential need for layoffs combined with company survival. Many interviewees explicitly concluded that securing jobs and salary payments was the most important duty of the employer during the crisis and ultimately ensured employees' well-being. As there had been no layoffs and salaries were paid on time in Germany, the interviewees considered these fundamental obligations fulfilled. Some respondents, however, voiced anger and disappointment in some respects. Such negative feelings are attributable to a disrespectful tone by management representatives, as described earlier. Another interviewee went on to share the following: Threats are being issued. These are all things where I think, 'You do not do that; that is not right' . I do not threaten my children all the time. That would drive them completely crazy. (Interviewee 22,pilot,43) The disrespectful tone and perceived threats related to the fundamental concern that the working conditions as they were before the crisis would never return. This was a pressing issue that made employees concerned about their future. In addition, employees voiced anger and disappointment regarding the airline's dismissal of regional flight attendants in other countries and the termination of its flight school. These layoffs created additional room for mistrust and were perceived as a neglect of co-workers' well-being. The interviewees concluded that while the employees in Germany were well taken care of, there were problems on the 'peripheries' . The solidarity among the employees across the company thus appeared high, as everyone was affected by the crisis: Where my heart bled, to be honest, was with the Indian colleagues, for example, because I think to myself, 'Okay, they do not have the highest salary anyway, whether we could not have found another solution somehow' . I find it a pity that this 'we are in this together' spirit was not lived out quite so clearly after all. (Interview 2, flight attendant, 30) The fact that there were dismissals in other countries thus appeared to cause unrest and reduce the general sense of well-being by reminding the employees of their vulnerability, even if our interviewees in the German context were not directly afraid of their dismissals.

Personalised care
Personalised care as an obligation reflects our finding that the interviewees, having been left without a regular work schedule and contact with their colleagues and managers, longed for a sense of connection and recognition. Although the general information flow was decent, salaries were paid, and jobs appeared secured, many interviewees (though not all) were missing a more personal sense of care, attention, and appreciation that they thought was important during a crisis. For example, many interviewees talked about the missing relationships with their colleagues. One interviewee explained, 'The social clue that holds you together is missing, the realisation that you are connected to others at work, that you care for others. … You only realise its existence when it is missing' (Interview 23,pilot,44). Similarly, many interviewees expected that the head of the fleet would check on the fleet members. One interviewee highlighted the importance of care and stated the following: If you don't see or hear from somebody for three months, it is not a bad idea to call and say, 'Hey, how are you? I have not seen you in any webcast. I have no email from you, no message from you' . It is not a big deal to call and check on each other, right? We have perhaps lost some colleagues. (Interviewee 29,pilot,47) Many interviewees explicitly stated that they had excepted a phone call from their superior but had not received one. Many also knew that others had received such calls, evoking feelings of disappointment among those who had not been called. Consequently, there were frequent exchanges of information in WhatsApp groups and on social media among the employees about who had been personally approached, often creating a negative spiral and rumours. Interviewees also regarded regular personal checks as an expression of care: It is truly important to keep everyone on board, to make sure that you truly do keep in touch with everyone, in some form or another. Of course, given the size of our company, it is almost impossible, but I think that is the most important duty in HR. In addition, they tried to fulfil this. (Interviewee 27,pilot,46) Some of the interviewees reported disappointment regarding their exchanges with their supervisors, as well as HR, regarding specific questions. These exchanges occurred more frequently when the employees were confined to special circumstances that somewhat differed from those of typical crew members, for example, when pilots had just started their retraining on a new aircraft when the crisis began and had no licence yet for the new aircraft. There were other pilots whose aircraft models were decommissioned by the management during the crisis. Thus, they were not allowed to fly any airplane and they had no role or job to return to. Moreover, since they had no licence to fly any of the company's planes, they knew that their reintegration would occur last after a long wait. As a result, many voiced feelings of being forgotten and lacked specific information about the process of how and when they would return to work. One pilot (Interviewee 17, pilot, 32) stated, 'It would be nice if someone would at least call and say, or even just write an email, 'Hey, we have not forgotten you!'' Similarly, specific HR questions concerning maternity or paternity leaves remained unanswered for longer times in some cases, causing frustration. It was considered important that the employer was responsive to expressions of individual needs during the crisis, as the employees were in a vulnerable situation. It was, however, also acknowledged that maintaining personal contact was a challenge in a large company.

Inactivation of the precrisis psychological contract
While the interviewees focused on the crisis-specific psychological contract, we noted that many preferred to 'freeze' their precrisis psychological contracts because they could not engage in the exchange relationship as it had been before the crisis yet wished to return to 'normality' in the future. We labelled this preference as the inactivation of the precrisis psychological contract. Such inactivation reflected a persistent belief that the 'old' psychological contract was simply 'on-hold' and that everything would return to its precrisis status. Noteworthily, inactivation occurred even though a contract breach or violation had not been experienced. The interviewees sincerely wished to maintain and protect the exchange relationship they had with the employer before the crisis, leaving them quite responsive to any signals and news from the employer (hence, the emphasis on transparent information in the crisis-specific psychological contract). Our findings suggest that such inactivation occurs through two main mechanisms: (a) alienation from the company and (b) immersion in alternative roles.

Alienation from the company
Alienation from the company refers to both purposeful withdrawal and unintentional feelings of alienation due to not having worked for, at times, significantly long periods. The COVID-19 crisis changed the daily lives of our interviewees in a fundamental way. Instead of following their intensive work schedules, our respondents were forced to stay home, suddenly leaving them without work schedules and responsibilities. Some interviewees focused extensively on spending time with friends and family, becoming involved in their hobbies or immersing themselves in alternative careers. The reasons for these choices were self-protection and distraction because any possible engagement with the airline (or even with the pilot's union) implied exposure to 'bad news' . In the words of one interviewee, 'I ignore the crisis somehow because I know there is no good news anyway' (Interviewee 25, pilot). According to some respondents, the crisis opened their eyes to life beyond the airline industry, and they even wished to purposefully withdraw and alienate themselves. At the same time, since most respondents could work either too little or not at all, they indicated lower levels of identification both with their roles and with the organisation, resulting in unintentional feelings of alienation. Some interviewees stated that the precrisis work life started to feel distant and simply faded away. One of the interviewees explained: The fact that I'm truly completely out of it for a year now naturally distances me from the company in a way, unintentionally. (Interviewee 13, pilot, 32)

Immersion in alternative roles
As explained above, immersion in alternative roles contributed to a sense of alienation but also independently facilitated the inactivation of the precrisis psychological contract. While many interviewees explained how they had been able to invest considerably more in their parent and partner roles than they did before the crisis, we noted that psychological contract inactivation was especially influenced by a completed alternative education or formal jobs that many of our interviewees were able to fall back on. Many flight attendants and pilots built a second mainstay over the years, for example, by building their own companies or engaging in other jobs besides flying. For example, one pilot explained that he looked at the crisis through a different, less emotional lens than many of his colleagues did (Interviewee 25, pilot), as he had a business administration degree and a previous career in consulting. Another devoted time to developing his IT company further (Interviewee 27,pilot,46) and advancing his business activities in ways that would not have been possible without the lockdown. The interviewees with alternative career options were thus less dependent on the company and could immerse themselves in their second careers. As one pilot explained, 'I know the world of work outside the cockpit. I would certainly find something there, and I have already received requests from people from time to time (Interviewee 22,pilot,43).

Calling
Although many respondents had employment options outside the airline industry and some reported alienation from the company, they consistently recalled their job as a pilot or flight attendant before the crisis as a childhood dream or even what can be referred to as a calling (Wrzesniewski, 2012). The interviewees could not imagine giving up their flying careers, even though they had a second job waiting for them. One flight attendant (Interviewee 4, 29) explained, 'My heart is attached to this job. Not the money or anything, but my heart is attached to it' . Therefore, even if the interviewees engaged in other exchanges and formed new or strengthened their other possible psychological contracts during the crisis, they inactivated their precrisis psychological contract with the hope that it could be reactivated soon instead of fully embracing alternative employment opportunities. One interviewee (Interviewee 27, pilot, 46) shared, 'It is not just a job. I think you have to live it' , and a flight attendant concluded, 'It [the crisis] made me realise that I definitely want to fly and that the question of 'Do I want to stop flying someday?' has actually been answered' (Interviewee 11,flight attendant,22).
Inactivation of the precrisis psychological contract thus allowed for a break in the worst period of turbulence caused by the pandemic. However, the intention was to reactivate the original psychological contract after the crisis and return to the previous exchange relationship. In so doing, inactivation served to protect the precrisis psychological contract and, thereby, the employment relationship during the uncertain crisis period. For some, the inactivation was an outcome of intentional or unintentional alienation; for others, it occurred through purposeful engagement in alternative roles while maintaining a sense of calling to one's profession in the airline industry.

Psychological contract credit
Rather than inactivating their contracts, some employees resorted to what we call a psychological contract credit, reflecting the idea of exchange as a deal that simply changed due to an external disruption, namely the COVID-19 pandemic. While classical credit is essentially 'a social relation that forms between a creditor (lender) and a borrower (debtor). … The debtor promises to repay the lender, often with interest, or risk financial or legal penalties' (Investopedia, 2022), credit in the context of this research means that the employees knowingly acknowledged an imbalance in favour of the employer and accepted-willingly-that the payback might only occur in a distant future. We also want to emphasise that this is a psychological contract credit, meaning that it is in the eye of the beholder and that it resulted from conscious elaboration. We explain our findings regarding this credit below.

Exchange deal
Our analysis shows that the interviewees believed that they were obligated to support the company beyond their regular contributions because of the crisis, for example, by foregoing their full salary or a long-planned training needed for promotion or by accepting cutbacks in their usual employment conditions. Because the COVID-19 crisis was not the company's fault, the employees' choice was also limited, and they felt obligated and-importantly-wanted to contribute to supporting the company: Everyone is willing to contribute during this crisis. In addition, there are also quite a few who would sacrifice even more money than they do now -who say, 'Hey, I do not need two-thirds of my salary but give me half or even just one-third for a while' . I'm sure there are some who would say, 'I do not need any money at all for six months' . (Interviewee 13,pilot,32) Since some employees were on short-term work (as described earlier) and received government benefits, they were not allowed to work or volunteer to participate in any company activities. Interestingly, such prohibitions on working or forced withdrawal from the organisation presented a significant diversion in the psychological contract that resulted in a guilty conscience for some of our interviewees. This situation ultimately highlights the strong sense of obligation, the hope for a return to the precrisis psychological contract, and the strong calling to the profession. These interviewees felt they were not able to help or contribute and were considered a burden by those colleagues who worked. As one of the pilots concluded, 'I have heard from friends [that] I'm not standing my ground anymore. 'Yes, you do not actually do anything for your money; you actually get money as a gift; you're a burden' (Interviewee 32, pilot, 53).
Although the crisis thus induced many employees to contribute in ways unimaginable in prepandemic times and some felt guilty about being forced to stay home while others worked, these contributions came with strings attached. Like lenders, the interviewees both expected and trusted in the willingness of the employer to 'pay back' once the crisis was over. Many interviewees explicitly stated that they expected to be compensated for their concessions once the crisis subsided, reflecting a reciprocal exchange deal. In fact, we identified as one of the greatest concerns the possibility that the employees would not be rewarded for their concessions after the business returned to normal, as the following quote illustrates: I would like them [the company] to say, 'Hey, we're including you. We have all been through this. You have all made a contribution' . In addition, when the contribution has been made and the crisis has been overcome, you say, 'Okay, now we're trying to get back to a precrisis level or to a new level ' . Interviewee 17,pilot,32 However, it should be emphasised that the returns the employees expected mainly implied the reintroduction of the precrisis working conditions-and the precrisis psychological contract. In other words, the credit was given in the hope that the 'original' psychological contract could be reactivated, as the following quote illustrates: I have absolute understanding for all the measures that are now being taken to manage the crisis, to minimise costs and so on, and I fully support them. However, this should truly only be temporary until the crisis is over. (Interviewee 18,flight attendant,32) Thus, the expected payback is not an unspecified wish but rather concrete expectations for specific working conditions that were withheld or withdrawn during the crisis as cost-saving measures. To compensate for their (financial) contributions during the crisis, the employees thus demanded a return to precrisis job circumstances.

External disruption
When considering the credit and accepting the imbalance, the interviewed employees acknowledged that the crisis was not the employer's fault. In other words, attributions played a central role in how the respondents managed their psychological contracts during the crisis. This acknowledgement of external disruption significantly softened the employees' assessments of their employer and influenced their willingness to undertake concessions. One pilot explained, 'Most things were not within their [airline, its top management] sphere of influence' (Interviewee 32, pilot, 53). Despite the extent of the crisis and the uncertainty surrounding the industry, most employees did not lose their optimism, which also reflected the external origins of the problems. In fact, our interviewees maintained a high level of hope and expected their jobs and lives to return to how they were before the crisis. One interviewee (Interviewee 13, pilot, 32) added, 'We still have hope that everything will work out and that we can continue as we have been doing for the last few years' . This positive prospect was based on the faith that the COVID-19 pandemic would cease, thereby also allowing the employer to stop the crisis measures and procedures. Figure 2 depicts how a crisis-specific psychological contract emerged during the crisis from the precrisis contract and how the assessment of the precrisis contract was frozen. Our findings are centred around the contract assessment during the crisis, while Figure 2 also depicts the interviewees' reflections on the past and the future.

Discussion
Using the lens of the concept of psychological contracts, this qualitative study examined how employees manage their psychological contracts in a crisis during which the normal parameters of assessing contract fulfilment or violation are not feasible. In addition to noting specific priorities in terms of psychological contract content, we identified interesting dynamics in contract maintenance, which we regard as unique to times of crisis and which provide valuable contributions to the existing literature. We labelled these dynamics psychological contract inactivation and psychological contract credit and elaborate on them in the following section after briefly discussing the key contents of the crisis-specific psychological contract.

Theoretical implications
The crisis-specific psychological contract We identified transparent information, employee well-being, and personalised care as important components of employees' psychological contracts during a crisis, replacing other employer obligations in importance. The need for transparent information and honest communication is high during crises. Even when an employer's chances of diminishing contract violation perceptions seem limited, for example, due to economic constraints, the employer can signal to employees that it aims to resolve possible discrepancies in the future and communicate this intent (Tomprou et al., 2015). Motivating employees to accept the situation or even framing it positively is crucial. In our study, the introduction of interactive webcasts developed with employees enabled the employer to uphold the information flow and served as a tool to demonstrate continuous openness and transparency. The webcasts were an efficient way to reach as many employees as possible and retain some degree of control regarding information delivered to the employees despite the geographically dispersed workforce.
In spite of the overall positive evaluation of the crisis-specific psychological contract, employees in our study also expressed mistrust, doubts, and fears that were mainly related to their vulnerability. Interestingly, job insecurity, usually a core issue in a crisis, was less of a direct pressing concern for our interviewees, even if they stressed the importance of company survival. Psychological contract theory views job insecurity as a major component of the contract (Cuyper & Witte, 2006;Rousseau, 1995). Rousseau (1995), however, defined an inevitable change in the contract terms as more significant than job insecurity. We support this conclusion since the main concern of our respondents was possible permanent changes in work conditions (and thereby in the precrisis psychological contract) rather than a possible job loss, even if the interviewees also were concerned about layoffs and company survival. Therefore, our findings support the thesis that 'reductions in long-established benefits' (Tomprou et al., 2015) can trigger fundamental perceptions of contract violation. Furthermore, different company representatives may demonstrate different levels of empathy and respect. If the company does not convey a unanimous message, it can lead to ambivalent feelings among the employees, thereby contributing to unfavourable assessments and mistrust. In addition, we conclude that social comparison appears to play an important role in a crisis setting because many employees actively search for and share information. Thus, an individual's assessment of the psychological contract is influenced by social information from referents (Ho, 2005), and horizontal trickling and grapevine-like information flow contribute to the contract even if official information is widely available.

Inactivation of the psychological contract
Our results suggest that a significant number of respondents simply inactivated their precrisis psychological contract. By focusing on the crisis-specific contract and directing their attention to something other than their employment relationships, our interviewees paused both their expectations and obligations embedded in the precrisis psychological contract while still holding a formal contract with the company. The idea of inactivation aligns with Tomprou et al. (2015), who argued that a psychological contract can be reactivated following a violation, whereby the contract returns to its previolation state. The mechanism of inactivation that we observed is a distinct dynamic specific to the crisis condition that did not allow for the normal exchange processes. In the case of inactivation, violation as such is not perceived.
As the employer could not uphold the obligations of the precrisis contract for an apparent reason, psychological contract inactivation can be partially explained by the cost that can arise when an unmet promise is discovered. As Morrison and Robinson (1997, p. 239) concluded, 'Whenever the psychological costs of discovering an unmet promise are perceived to outweigh the information value of this discovery, employees will be less vigilant in monitoring contract fulfilment' . Interestingly, in the context of atypical employment relationships, freelancing, and working in a context without clear organisational boundaries, such psychological contract inactivation might allow employees to transition smoothly between jobs and roles and reactivate existing contracts when needed. Such inactivation also might reflect mental disengagement, whereby employees expect less from their employer by ignoring possible violations as they shift their attention to nonwork activities or goals or tasks unrelated to the violation (Tomprou et al., 2015). Since many pilots and flight attendants held second jobs, played other roles, or even owned companies, these side activities became their primary jobs during the crisis.
Interestingly, most respondents viewed their jobs as flight crew members as a calling, similar to professionals such as academics, musicians, zookeepers, or members of elite military groups (Fraher & Gabriel, 2014). Such identification with the job also facilitated the temporary inactivation of the precrisis psychological contract. A study by Kraak et al. (2020) conducted with military pilots proposed a similar idea of how passion for one's job influences psychological contract dynamics. Although the pilots in their study perceived a contract breach and even reported lower levels of trust because of the breach, they tolerated it because of their desire to continue flying. Kraak et al. (2020, p. 255) concluded that 'commitment to profession compensates for the reduced commitment to the organization and lack of trust in the organization and its management' . Relatedly, although an experience of contract breach and violation can result in increased exit intentions, it can often be resolved by moving jobs within the organisation rather than exiting the profession. In other words, even though employees tend to attribute contract breaches to the employer, they wish to maintain their profession. In fact, in light of our findings, we agree with Paille and Dufour (2012, p. 212), who argued that 'the sense of belonging to the profession may help an employee to overcome difficulties associated with a particular employment context' .
In summary, psychological contract inactivation allows employees to offset the potential negative effects of a crisis by serving as a self-protection measure and enabling employees to find meaning in other activities while keeping the formal employment contract and precrisis psychological contract intact. The ultimate evaluation of the precrisis psychological contract and its fulfilment is thus suspended.

Psychological contract credit
It seems logical to assume that the usual laws of psychological contracting are suspended in an extreme crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. This assumption is supported by Wu et al. (2021), who examined contract breaches during the COVID-19 crisis in the hospitality industry. They reported less emphasis on components such as growth opportunities or work-life balance and increased importance on communication, leadership care, and psychological aid, congruent with previous crisis management research and our findings.
Interestingly, our knowledge regarding employees' forward-looking speculations in terms of their psychological contracts is limited, although 'obligations [as part of psychological contracts] may derive from implicit or explicit promises of future exchange [emphasis added] or reciprocity' (Robinson et al., 1994, p. 138), and social exchange relies on trust that contributions will be paid back in the future. In our study, employees explicitly expected some future return for their present compromises towards their employer during the crisis. We labelled this expectation psychological contract credit. If the return does not occur, breach and even violation perceptions are likely to ensue. Westwood et al. (2001) also speculated about how a new balance is negotiated. For example, if the company requires increased flexibility from its employees during a crisis, employees are likely to look for signals of security in return. Our findings align with these notions.
In the case of both contract inactivation and credit, the ultimate evaluation of the precrisis psychological contract is postponed to a later time. Following contract inactivation, the precrisis contract can be reactivated and then assessed later. Similarly, employees can evaluate whether the credit has been or can be expected to be repaid once the crisis subsides. In light of the limitations of our data, our findings and model thus suggest how one can conceptualise psychological contracts as processes that unfold and evolve over time. In the context of psychological contract processes, 'people engage in interactions with other people because they are motivated by the expectations of receiving inducements from the other party' (Bal & Kooij, 2011, p. 502). We can conclude that employees must have a high level of trust in their employer to offer a psychological contract credit. This assumption is supported by Bankins (2015), who identified two approaches to contract repair, labelled 'remedies' and 'buffers' . Remedies served to directly address and repair a breach, whereas buffers served as cognitive measures of reinterpretation so that the broader psychological contract could be repaired. The 'future focus effect' enabled employees to repair a breached contract by focusing on the conditions of the broken contract being limited to a finite period and impermanent (Bankins, 2015). In our case, contract repayment was not yet needed, but the credit-the acceptance of imbalance in favour of the employer-relied on the future focus effect.
The employees in our study were willing to offer credit largely because of the unique crisis conditions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. The changes in the employment conditions were thus fully attributable to external disruption. Employees also reported high levels of hope of going back to 'how it once was' and emphasised their calling to their profession. Thus, the perceived likelihood of resolution, a key motivator of an individual's responses to a violation, seemed high (Tomprou et al., 2015). Furthermore, many interviewees considered the most important crisis-triggered components of the psychological contract (such as information) to be largely fulfilled. We also must acknowledge that our interviewees were forced to suspend their evaluations of possible contract breaches because there were no alternative jobs in the market at the time. As Rousseau's (1995) seminal work emphasised, the availability of employment alternatives influences employees' reactions to contract breaches. Although breach results in increased turnover intentions, we realise that 'turnover is usually a realistic choice for employees only after receiving alternative job offers' (Zhao et al., 2007, p. 670).
In conclusion, employees of an organisation in crisis can decide to offer what we called psychological contract credit and, by doing so, defer the ultimate assessment of their psychological contracts. This is a likely reaction when the crisis is attributable to external reasons beyond the employer's control and when employees can hope and trust that the exchange will return to its normal modus operandi.

Practical implications
Our research allows us to consider several practical implications for HR managers in times of crisis. 'The coronavirus crisis thrusts corporate HR chiefs into the spotlight' (The Economist, 2020) and thus consigns HR managers to an important role in navigating the crisis. First and foremost, employees expect a high level of trustworthy information during a crisis. This goal can be achieved using, for example, a variety of web-based tools available, such as webcasts, which played a major role in the organisation concerned in our research. However, the importance of personal contact between employees and direct supervisors should not be ignored, and organisations should be aware of the wealth of horizontal information flows, which might not always accurately capture the situation. Another aspect is ensuring a high level of transparency by, for example, explicitly admitting uncertainty and providing consistent and honest communication, including information about possible job cuts. By focusing on these aspects, organisations can maintain functioning psychological contracts even in times of crisis or win employees' credit, which can then be paid back when the situation improves. Abusing a crisis to introduce long-planned cost-saving measures undermines employees' trust and willingness to accept concessions. Especially if the crisis originates from externalities beyond the organisations' control, organisations can expect an understanding approach from their employees, as well as a willingness to accept temporary (financial) cuts. Nonetheless, companies should demonstrate a willingness to reward this behaviour in better times and then put their words into action. Furthermore, employers can actively facilitate the inactivation of contracts to prolong their ultimate assessment. This inactivation can include offers of unpaid leave, volunteering opportunities, alternative tasks within the focal company, or training during the crisis time.

Limitations and directions for future research
We conducted our study within one company, albeit a large, globally operating one, and its application to different contexts and industries may be limited. In addition, we considered only the employee perspective; however, we acknowledge that both employee and employer perspectives should be considered to fully uncover reciprocal processes. It can also be argued that airlines, as high-reliability organisations, and their employees are trained in crisis management. We also acknowledge that short-term work arrangements, as an important political crisis instrument, are specific to the German context, thus inhibiting direct generalisations of our findings to other geographical locations.
We propose psychological contract inactivation and psychological contract credit as interesting research avenues for the future. Given that our interviews entailed some speculation about the future, engaging in longitudinal studies in crisis contexts could be useful to tap into how employees evaluate their credit or reactivate their precrisis contracts and how these contracts may be potentially revised. In general, the specific role of time and the forward-looking expectations in psychological contracts are avenues meriting further research. Additionally, investigations into the roles of social comparisons and rumours, especially in crisis contexts, could lead to interesting insights into the maintenance of and changes in psychological contracts.

Conclusion
We examined how psychological contracts are assessed and managed during a crisis. Our findings point to the rapid development of a crisis-specific psychological contract and offer two novel concepts to psychological contract theory: psychological contract credit and inactivation of the precrisis psychological contract. Our work not only extends psychological contract theory but also offers valuable practical suggestions on how organisations can fulfil their obligations to their employees in times of crisis.

Data availability statement
Participation in the interviewees was fully voluntary and each interviewee was fully informed about the research before they giving their consent. The qualitative data set is not publicly available, but the authors agree to make data and materials supporting the results and analyses available for a review upon reasonable request.