sivarajan-et-al-2021-to-jugaad-or-not-how-mumbai-s-gig-workers-thrive-against-psychological-contract-discrepancies

Research Article
To Jugaad or Not? South Asian Journal of Human R esources

Management
How Mumbai’s Gig 8(1) 103–132, 2021
© The Author(s) 2021
Workers Thrive Reprints and permissions:
https://doi.org/10.1177/2322093721995311
in.sagepub.com/journals-permissions-india
Against Psychological DOI: 10.1177/2322093721995311
journals.sagepub.com/home/hrm
Contract Discrepancies
Rahul Sivarajan1 , Aparna M. Varma2 and Reshmi1
Abstract
As gig economy based firms increasingly rely upon algorithmic management
to regulate their gig workers, we explore how driver-partners’ psychological
contacts working for two major ridesharing platforms based on Mumbai evolve.
The gig workers’ responses in how they adapt and thrive to the challenges
posed by the information asymmetry brought about by the app’s algorithms
are qualitatively captured using semi-structured interviews. From the thematic
analysis that follows, we learn that the gig workers perceive psychological contract
violation when repetitive attempts via problem-focused coping fail to resolve
the psychological contract breach induced discrepancies. Though functional
coping responses are persisted initially, we find that a collective influenced
employee reaction follows soon. This collective attempt at resetting the power
asymmetry leads the drivers to disengage with their organisations and resort to
counterproductive work behaviour hacks. These temporary and significant quick
fixes (identified as jugaad in the local culture) help the gig workers thrive amidst
their disengagement states.
Keywords
Gig worker, psychological contract, thematic analysis, algorithmic management,
counterproductive work behaviour
Submitted: 8 October 2020; Revised 1: 17 December 2020; Accepted: 11

January 2021
1 School of Management and Labour Studies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
2 Organizational Behaviour and Human Resources Area, Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode,
IIMK Campus P.O., Kozhikode, Kerala, India.
Corresponding author:
Rahul Sivarajan, School of Management and Labour Studies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, VN
Purav Marg, Deonar, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400088, India.
E-mail: mp2018mls001@tiss.edu
104 South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management 8(1)
Introduction
The unwritten obligations and mutual expectations surrounding an employer and
an employee’s work-related relationships are represented in what Rousseau
(1995) termed as a psychological contract (PC). As employment-related attitudes
and outcome behaviours tend to be hinged on the sequential honouring of these
obligations (Ballinger & Rockman, 2010), PCs can also be visualised as workplace
commitments interpreted distinctively by each party, unfolding over a while.
(Conway & Briner, 2005; de Jong et al., 2017). PC breach (a general perception
regarding obligations not being met) and violation (the affective responses
following an instance of breach) follows as essential constituents of the larger PC
schema as it critically influences employee cognitions, emotions and behaviour
(Kraak et al., 2020; Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Parzefall & Coyle-Shapiro,
2011). Extant research (Bankins, 2015; Conway & Briner, 2005; Tomprou et al.,
2015) has focused on the PC formations and breaches as such; however, less is
known about how social context as a factor influences the dynamic evolution of
PC breach or violations and the resultant employee reactions. Calls on
understanding the effect of contextual factors on PC are thereby gaining traction
(Kraak & Linde, 2019; Kraak et al., 2020).
The PC and its perceptions as obligations met in capacities (of under or over
fulfilled) tend to be dynamic. A PC evolves along the varying experiences
employees accumulate concerning exchanges with their employers (Griep et al.,
2018; Rousseau et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2020). These inducements, obligated
from the employer to the employee, and their dynamicity are still a contested
terrain despite the recent efforts at delineation (Yang et al., 2020). Though
researchers (Zhao et al., 2007) had explored the breach and violations associated
with the PC and the resultant outcomes of counterproductive work behaviours and
its impact on organisational citizenship behaviour, the temporality of how it all
(breaches and violations of PC) unfolds is mostly not yet manifested. Moreover,
considering the intensifying nature of cognitions and behaviours of humans over
time (Shipp & Janssen, 2011) and the dynamic theorisation of PC (Rousseau et
al., 2018), limiting the measurement of breaches and violations in a static manner
will stifle the understanding on how employees or employers perceive and react
to these dynamics over time (Griep & Vantilborgh, 2018).
Algorithms are the key to any gig economy-based organisation (which uses
technology to enable a full or part-time workforce digitally) in the current times
(Cheng & Foley, 2019; Duggan et al., 2020). Often deployed in the context of gig
or freelance work devoid of the binding obligations of a full-time employment
contract, algorithmic management enables the gig worker (e.g., an Uber driver) to
work with autonomy and flexibility over a lot of work-related decision points
(working hours in a day, area and time of operation, the vehicle of choice to name
a few). In reality, how algorithmic management pans out for the gig worker may
be less rosy than what it appears (Lee et al., 2015; Rosneblat & Stark, 2016). Often
turned into a means for the technological appropriation of the very freedom and
autonomy it promised to gig workers, algorithmic management is designed and
enabled in a controlling manner and, of late, has attracted much negative publicity
Sivarajan et al. 105
over its manipulating mechanisms (Möhlmann & Zalmanson, 2017; Rosenblat &
Stark 2016; Schreiber 2017). Thus, how an employee/gig worker interacts and
deals with an artificial intelligence-enabled interface (or an app) and the resultant
implications of such temporal human-app interactions from a PC point of view
calls for further research (Bankins & Formosa, 2020; Broadbent, 2017).
Algorithms are the key to any gig economy-based organisation (which uses
technology to enable a full or part-time workforce digitally) in the current times
(Cheng & Foley, 2019; Duggan et al., 2020). Often deployed in the context of gig
or freelance work devoid of the binding obligations of a full-time employment
contract, algorithmic management enables the gig worker (e.g., an Uber driver) to
work with autonomy and flexibility over a lot of work-related decision points
(working hours in a day, area and time of operation, the vehicle of choice to name
a few). In reality, how algorithmic management pans out for the gig worker may
be less rosy than what it appears (Lee et al., 2015; Rosneblat & Stark, 2016). Often
turned into a means for the technological appropriation of the very freedom and
autonomy it promised to gig workers, algorithmic management is designed and
enabled in a controlling manner and, of late, has attracted much negative publicity
over its manipulating mechanisms (Möhlmann & Zalmanson, 2017; Rosenblat &
Stark 2016; Schreiber 2017). Thus, how an employee/gig worker interacts and
deals with an artificial intelligence-enabled interface (or an app) and the resultant
implications of such temporal human-app interactions from a PC point of view
calls for further research (Bankins & Formosa, 2020; Broadbent, 2017).
Montes et al. (2015) observed that in the aftermath of PC breaches and
violations and the ensuing sensemaking process, employees resorted to problem-
focused coping by speaking/voicing their concerns to alleviate the perceived
discrepancies. Factual appeals and solution presentation as part of upward dissent
expression tactics were outlined by Kassing (2009) as the first resort of
disagreement employees chose. Kassing (2009) observed that the employees
gradually upped the ante with more threatening forms such as resignation
readiness when the desired response was found to be lacking in their repetitive
attempts with pro-social forms of dissent in the first place. When these tactics by
the employees fail to resolve their issues, what unfolds needs to be explored
in-depth, though. As unresolved PC violations loom over the employee–employer
relationship, the employee's affect pathways may need detailed sensemaking to
unravel. Also, how PCs shape over a while and across different groups of
employees (for instance, newcomers and experienced employee groups) is an area
that is hardly explored. With the wealth of their experiences, especially those
related to breach events or the accumulating nature of the same over a while, older
workers may perceive and act on the breach/violation quicker than a newcomer
(Woodrow & Guest, 2020).
This research aims to study the gig workers (in Mumbai city, India) operating
in labour-intensive ridesharing gig platforms such as Uber and Ola (two leading
cab aggregators in India). The PCs these gig workers develop and perceive with
their respective contracted organisations’ first level interface—the AI-enabled
app—is the focal point of this study. We strive to address what constitutes a
breach/violation for such gig workers and how they make sense of it, and the
unique reaction pathways and PC end states that develop out of these experiences.
Most importantly, we identify time's role in accumulating breach and violation
perspectives and on the resultant coping and resolution end states.
Considering the unique social context in which the study is situated (all the
driver-partners worked full time and were migrants to the city seeking better
economic prospects), we have chosen an exploratory qualitative approach to
identify how these contextual factors determine the unfolding of PC breach,
violations and ensuing gig worker reactions. The general precarity of the labour
market pools they found themselves in and the ensuing power asymmetries in the
human-app relationship was influencing a lot of these post- PC violation pathways
observed in the study.
We go on to throw further light with the following section on extant and recent
literature dealing with psychological contract, its evolution and dynamic nature
while also covering the new ways of working and the resultant social context a
contingent employee may thus find him/herself in. After identifying the research
gaps via this review, the study outlines its theoretical stance and proposes the key
research questions it wishes to address. Following this, we cover the methodological
and analytical nuances adopted and present our qualitative analysis's key findings.
Discussions, contributions and the implications of the study follow suit before we
conclude and summarise.
Literature Review
The PC constitutes a cognitive set of promised inducements that underline an
employee’s relationship with the employer for the former’s services in return.
These contracts could be relational, transactional, or ideological (Rousseau,
1995). Relational contracts are those registering at an emotional level with a
subjective and longstanding tenor to them. In contrast, transactional PCs are
short-term, tangible and do not involve the emotional grounding on which the
relational PCs are rooted. In contrast, ideological PCs are value-based, and a
mutual relationship situated implicitly between the employee and employer
(Rousseau & McLean Parks, 1993; Thompson & Bunderson, 2003). A PC breach
or violation occurs when the organisation is perceived to violate the norms of
reciprocity and end up not honouring any of these promises/inducements they
owe to their employees (Kraak et al., 2020; Morrison & Robinson, 1997).
As PCs are based on the give and take that unfolds over time, Rousseau et al.
(2018) had identified a few phases in this process. The first phase is PC creation,
based on the expectation setting a new employee undertakes after getting a sense of
his/her job and available formative information of the organisation’s ways. When
this give and take relationship is balanced for a while, the contract is considered in
the maintenance phase. Disruption of this balance occurs when there is an
organisational shock perceived by the employee or an organisational change, which
leaves the employer with lesser resources to honour the employee’s inducements,
potentially leading to a PC breach. This no-obligation would lead to employees
repairing the contract to a previous level or reactivation or adjusting their
experienced discrepancies to renegotiate the contract to a relatively better (thriving)

or lesser level (impairment) of the maintenance stage. From here, the employee
may go back to the maintenance stage, or the contract in its entirety may dissolve
(Solinger et al., 2016; Tomprou et al., 2015; Van Der Schaft et al., 2020). The
velocity feedback, or the speed at which the employee can gauge a credible response
to his/her PC concerns from the employer side, also accelerates the unfolding of an
employee’s PC end state (Rousseau et al., 2018; Van Der Schaft et al., 2020).
Since the concept of life-long employment in an organisation is not the mantra
anymore, the onus on career development is on the employee nowadays. Thus,
how PC states develop in a gig economy work scenario requires scholarly analysis
as PC breaches among self-employed gig workers become more evident (Coyle-
Shapiro & Neuman, 2004; Griep & Vantilborgh, 2018) and have elicited calls for
research in an Indian sub-continent/Asian geographic context (Kutaula et al.,
2020). Further, probing for a human–app PC relationship, substantial evidence
pointing to such an exchange in the study’s research setting needs to be brought out
as well. Studies have shown that exchanges between a human employee and a
robot at a workplace are entirely possible (Bankins & Formosa, 2020; Darling,
2017), with reciprocations observed between both parties. Bankins and Formosa
(2020) also observed that if such elementary machine-human exchanges could
happen, it could get more sophisticated when a more complex element (for instance,
an AI-powered dynamic algorithm) is integrated into the system. These studies
indicate that perceived exchanges of inducements could be possible between
humans and their AI-powered counterparts, which in the context of our study being
the ridesharing application accessed by the drivers to access work trips.
As the PC evaluation is a dynamic process, an employee may perceive their
contract end states to oscillate between the under–over fulfilment continuum.
Unless there is a jolt disruptive enough to question any discrepancies between the
obligated and delivered inducements, an equilibrium state is usually maintained
within this continuum (Yang et al., 2020). Though when it comes to choosing
between delivered and obligated inducements, employees tend to attach stronger
feelings (for instance, satisfaction at work or PC violations) towards delivered
obligations (Montes & Irving, 2008). This attribution results from the variations
in delivered inducements being contingent on many internal and external factors
and relatively harder to predict (Yang et al., 2020). The nature of obligations
(implicit or explicit in its communication) may have a part in this within-person
variation leaning closer to delivered inducements. However, studies have been
inconsistent in definitively predicting it (Robinson & Morrison, 2000). However,
explicitness in the communication of inducements is more reliable for employees
over a while as implicit inducements come with a higher level of uncertainty and
are less concrete as the employee’s perceptions of the same may be more
susceptible to fluctuations in time (Montes & Irving, 2008; Yang et al., 2020).
Perceptions of past accounts of breaches and anticipated ones also play an integral
role in analysing recent PC breaches experienced by the employee. An employee
with past accounts of breaches may find a new experience to be accumulating and
aggravating his/her feelings of violation and thus may withdraw from espousing
organisational citizenship behaviours in a relatively faster manner post-breach
(Griep & Vantilborgh, 2018; Rousseau et al., 2018).
Artificial Intelligence (AI) enabled autonomy is sold as a crucial differentiating

factor favouring the gig work environment. However, it may be a double-edged
sword for the employee (Mazmanian et al., 2013). Paradoxically, it may hamper
the employee’s decision-making ability at the workplace with limited choices to
carry out their mandate. Mazmanian et al. (2013) posited that despite the increased
personal autonomy at hand for the employee, their work-life balance could be in
question, as constant performance evaluation and nudges by the AI-enabled
surveillance of app-work platforms could eventually lead to stress and burnout.
Often, there is a persistent need to be available for work or signalling their
readiness for it around the clock for the employees, thereby constraining their
overall control over work practices. Similar effects were observed by Rosenblat
and Stark (2016) in their study on Uber drivers, who experienced a lost sense of
control with bitterness towards the organisation over the advertised sense of
autonomy and flexibility not panning out in reality. Such data-enabled paradigm
shifts in organisations’ control strategies may be a game-changer in the future
(Schafheitle et al., 2020). However, the potential ramifications of this change for
the employee might not be as linear as intended.
How the new ways of working (with a unique work model and autonomy
granted to the worker being significant differentiators from the traditional model)
affect work and employment still call for clarity (Braganza et al., 2020). In a work
environment presented with the potential of autonomy, cab aggregator drivers, in
reality, has their options limited to a few pockets within the promised flexibility
on offer. Möhlmann and Zalmanson (2017) observed that these options are
majorly constrained to work hours and choice of the geographies of operation, as
algorithmic surveillance enabled round the clock by their parent organisations
monitors if the drivers are still toeing the line they draw. Amongst other means,
this is often accomplished by regulating the matchmaking between the drivers and
their customers, a rating system which grades the driver’s performance on the job
on a ride-to-ride basis, and an opaque route and fare rate determination aiding in
controlling the drivers so-called ‘autonomy’ (Möhlmann & Zalmanson, 2017;
Rosenblat & Stark, 2016). With its big data analytics and logic being off the driver
population’s limits, this opacity often unfolds into algorithmic information and
power asymmetry in the organisation’s favour. With the organisation controlling
the generation, manipulation and dissemination of the data and when one considers
the social context in which the labour force often finds itself binding to such
limited choices and micromanagement at employment, it leads to a black hole of
autonomy heavily favouring the firm than the so-called empowered cab driving
entrepreneur (Dourish, 2016; Pongratz, 2018; Rosenblat & Stark 2016) and
attracting litigations in its wake (MacDonald & Giazitzoglu, 2019).
By demanding the customer ratings to be at par with what is informally
communicated to the drivers (Rosenblat & Stark, 2016), the performance
management is technically afforded by the app and entirely determined by the
customer. This appropriation is akin to supervisor level powers of man-management
being bestowed upon the customers by the algorithm. The app further makes
decisions for the drivers based on these ratings, including the workflow and
payouts, with their contracts being on the line if they do not meet a particular
metric in ratings (4.2 or above as seen in our study). Studies have also previously
called these rating mechanisms to be idiosyncratic and susceptible to gaming
(Luca & Zervas, 2015; Orlikowski & Scott, 2015). The price extracted by the app
for the allowances (work timings and choice of workdays mainly) it offers is the
extreme control of the driver’s workflow. This micromanagement is accentuated
by the prevalence of low wage numbers and general unemployment in the economy
(Ahsan, 2020). As the algorithms continually push one-sided decisions at the
drivers, it results in shorter turnaround times and customer satisfaction for the
customers, but for the workers, it is an ordeal with a relentless taskmaster (Chan,
2019; Rosenblat & Stark, 2016). Through this technical appropriation of
operational and human resource management functions (as dynamic decision
making is a mandate retained solely by the app’s algorithmic management), the
app acquires a persona almost as it goes about ‘doing things a manager would
otherwise engage in’ (Gillespie 2014; Orlikowski & Scott, 2015). Add monthly
EMIs (often via the car mortgage schemes the cab aggregators offer to gig drivers)
and other financial liabilities and the drivers are left with no option but to work full
time, even on weekend days. Studies (Hall & Krueger, 2018) have also shown that
most of the labour force for these platforms is constituted by workers who have
very limited or almost no exit options, a sentiment, which we observed in our
study as well. Since there is always a steady inflow of labour into the system, those
already present and struggling enjoy minimal bargaining power (Ahsan, 2020).
Employee–organisation communication is significant to any PC, and it achieves
a unique dimension in the case of a gig worker and the app-based organisation. As
algorithmic practices supersede and upend the support system role technology had
previously played (as a second fiddle to the human manager), it now controls
almost all the communication at a first level (via chatbots, emails, notifications,
for instance). As the most proximal organisational agent for the employee to form
a dependency, it is now relevant to examine the app and the employee's social
exchange. This upending leads to situations where a formalised engagement with
the organisational peers or superiors is beyond the reach of an employee, who thus
feels reduced to a quasi-worker status in an environment devoid of human-human
social exchange (Bankins & Formosa, 2020). This further sets the ground for even
the slightest of grievances to be interpreted within an algorithm’s bounds. In such
an arrangement, the errors from the side of the system could prove to be very
costly and sensitive for the already precarious gig worker. The transparency aspect
is also unique in the context of a highly competitive environment for these app-
based organisations. With their dynamic and adaptive data analysis structures, it
becomes further complicated for the gig economy organisations to disclose their
decision-making rationales (Rosenblat & Stark, 2016).
How a typical gig worker enters into the job with an app-based organisation
and the evolution of his/her PC from an entry-stage would be worth looking at
too. Majorly driven by the employer branding and the limited experience and
education, their PCs are still in a formative stage (Shore & Tetrick, 1994) as they
make sense of their work environment and absorb the organisational/non-
organisational and the explicit/implicit communication that comes their way.
Thus, an initial PC state is formed in these newbies’ minds, which acts as a guiding
light and base for their future perceptions (Rousseau, 2001). These initial PCs
may remain stable until the maintenance phase stage is reached while accumulating
more verbal and non-verbal promises in the process (Rousseau et al., 2018;
Woodrow & Guest, 2020). Boswell et al. (2005) observed that this initial
socialisation period (akin to a honeymoon period) into the organisation might
spike job satisfaction for employees, especially those keen to learn on the job.
Organisational support practices and inducements delivered at this stage can prop
up any dips felt otherwise in job satisfaction if they are in this initial phase (Wang
et al., 2017). Over-fulfilment of promises by the organisation at an early stage of
an employee’s induction into the work environment (as usually is the case with
cab aggregators) can give a false sense of approval and respect to the employee,
causing him/her to hold it as a reference base for future inducements (Carver &
Scheier, 2002). This falsetto could be detrimental for both parties, as going
forward, the employee’s expectations only shift upwards of this reference point. If
the delivered inducements do not catch up, it may lead to PC breaches for the
employee (Yang et al., 2020).
Employees typically meet with surprises or adverse shocks (akin to Lee &
Mitchell’s unfolding model theory, 1994) at the maintenance or disruption stage
of their general socialisation into the organisation. These reality checks can affect
their PCs and can further drive them to seek relevant information checks to
measure the discrepancies in their obligated versus delivered inducements in an
objective manner (Holtom et al., 2017). As the lack of normative embeddedness
of the gig economy starts impacting the workers (Wood et al., 2019), little has
been explored on how the employee reactions and the adjustments (or end states
of their PCs) shape in response to these adverse shocks (Woodrow & Guest,
2020), especially in the context our study. Though studies have shown that initial
PC judgments could determine employee attitudes to a large extent within the first
two months of their employment (Delobbe et al., 2016), the intensity and
importance of the breach event/violations could still shape the employee coping
responses at later stages. Moreover, when resorting to quantitative methods with
a half-yearly follow-up or less for temporal ones, the captured PC pathways across
the employee tenure from induction lack the clarity that a qualitative and
exploratory examination may bring (Woodrow & Guest, 2020). Bankins (2015)
had called for increased use in qualitative perspectives to bring out the complex
dynamics of PC breach unfolding and the potential theoretical implications such
a study can produce. The contradictions in the over usage of quantitative survey
research method in assessing a subjective construct such as PC has been brought
out in the past by researchers (Conway & Briner, 2009; Taylor & Tekleab, 2004),
as the method’s objective approach is not ideally placed to capture all the
complexities involved in the unravelling of PCs (Ali, 2020). In-depth conversations
with the gig workers could bring out the temporal variations in employee
discrepancy perceptions associated with their PC fulfilment in a better manner
compared to survey research (Rousseau et al., 2018).
It thus becomes imperative to examine the PC breach and violations in an
inductive and explorative manner. When the shock of breach kicks in and disrupts
the PC, employees may perceive a dip in their trust levels towards the organisation,
withhold some of their contributions and exhibit negative work attitudes (Rousseau
et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2007). In some cases, it may escalate to heightened
emotional feelings of violation (Morrison & Robinson, 1997) and irreparably
damage the employment relationship (Rousseau et al., 2018). Therefore, it is
worth examining how employees’ breach events during their gig work stint pan
out. Moreover, there have been calls (Kraak & Linde, 2019) to investigate the role
of contextual factors, especially in an environment where non-traditional gig
work with an app-based interaction plays a significant role, as it could bring in
more information in how PCs unravel temporally. Considering the dearth of
studies (Kraak et al., 2018) accounting for contextual factors, qualitatively
exploring the contextual element influences on PCs could be another area where
further research could prove useful (Kraak et al., 2020).
An employee who is new to the organisation would be shaping their network ties
in due course. A breach event early in the organisational stint could prove to be more
challenging as the cushioning provided by a peer network may be absent. Such
networks have been previously found to address basic concerns and assist with
mutual aid and provide them with a sense of collective identity (Ford & Honan,
2019). It would also be interesting to observe the timing of the breach event and the
relative strength of his/her off-the-job resources (such as driver peer groups) and
how it further influences the breach pathways. It could be contradictory too, as
experienced employees (despite their enmeshed nature of networks in the
organisation) may get triggered faster into experiencing a breach than a greenhorn,
based on their previous breach experiences (Sutton & Griffin, 2004; Woodrow &
Guest, 2020). Thus, peer groups’ influence and the timing of breach could be
explored to a greater extent, along with the experience/tenure level and past
perceptions of the affected employee and its influence on the PC end states developed.
The post-violation contract states (PC thriving, reactivation, impairment and
dissolution) as described by Tomprou et al. (2015) result from the coping strategy
resorted to by the employee. They observed that employees usually start with a
problem-focused coping strategy, where an adaptive problem-solving mode is put
into action by the employee. If no resolution or adaptation to the newer set of
obligations is achieved from the employee’s end, Tomprou et al. (2015) found that
he/she opts for an emotionally focused coping strategy (expressing dissent via
forceful and lateral means and resorting to off-the-job resources such as family
support and networks). Though these end states are limited to an extent, as the
employees may end up as reluctant stayers (Hom et al., 2012) or resort to ingenious
ways to wrest back some of the control usurped from them by the organisation’s
algorithmic management policies. Thus, exploring beyond the already identified
coping responses and contract end states is another area to contribute towards the
PC breach literature.
Theoretical Background
PC violations and its following outcomes, such as counterproductive work behaviour
(CWB), have traditionally been based on the tenets of social exchange theory (Blau,
1964) and the reciprocal nature of exchanges it espouses (Griep & Vantilborgh,
2018). Rousseau et al. (2018) posited that social exchange theory fails to thoroughly
explain the temporal variations in the employee behaviour outcomes, as they
experience unfolding PC breaches in their work tenures. By omitting the role of
time on PC perceptions and the probable influence of an employee’s past experiences
and future expectations on their PC end states, such studies stay uncharacteristic of
the theories they draw from (Griep & Vantilborgh, 2018; Tomprou et al., 2015).
Hansen and Griep (2016) and Rousseau et al. (2018) observed that the use of
cross-sectional measures has also hampered PC studies focusing on temporal
changes. When using repeated measures, the constructs’ effects could vary, for
instance, across PC phases (creation versus repair phase) and employee categories
(newcomer versus experienced). The self-regulation theory (Bandura, 1991) can
address the causal aspects determining an employee’s psychological contract’s
temporal evolution. By specifying a socio-cognitive process of individually
regulated cognitions and behaviours based on external cues, self-regulation theory
(SRT) helps to delineate employees’ temporal decisions. Based on individual
targets, goal progress underscored by a reference base, and discrepancies identified
via feedback mechanisms (Chang et al., 2009), SRT allows an employee to keep
track of his/her PC development. The information gathered, via discrepancy
feedback (mismatch between goals and set standards) and velocity feedback (the
speed at which goals are attained), keeps a check on the individual PC evaluation
until the discrepancy is significant enough to trigger a negative affect (Forgas &
George, 2001). The PC breach detection by an employee and his/her reactions to it
could be thus explained by this discrepancy feedback loop, with significant breaches
triggering negative affect in the form of PC violation (Morrison & Robinson, 1997).
SRT can underline the manifestation of the ‘create’ and ‘maintenance’ phase in
employee PCs. This balance is achieved as employees focus on the present receipt
of inducements consistent with their PCs and undertake course correction in
further periodic reassessment to fulfil their goal fulfilment (Carver & Scheier,
2002). Thus, the PC evaluations set in motion by assessing and adjusting employee
and employer obligations perceived by the former are temporally created and
altered based on the feedback loops. By considering the role of effect, SRT further
helps build PC research and accompanying employee reactions of feeling violated
or fulfilled concerning inducements. When promises and obligations are evaluated
individually, both negative and positive affect induced by discrepancy and
environment triggers could aid in the employee’s PC phase transitions (Carver &
Scheier, 2001; Rousseau et al., 2018). SRT thus extends a theoretical framework
to such iterative attempts by the employee (Rousseau et al., 2018). By taking into
account the antecedent feedback loops, their pace and the affect produced at the
employee’s end, SRT informs the research undertaken in this study.
Research Questions
The drivers working for cab aggregators of Uber and Ola organisations in Mumbai
city are interviewed in the study on how the app-workers’ promised autonomy and
the app’s algorithmic micromanagement interact in practice. If there are indeed

conflicts arising out from this interaction as previous studies point to (Rosenblat &
Stark, 2016), the consequent impact of this on the driver’s PC and their ensuing
sensemaking are questions worth pondering. One of the underlying assumptions of
PC is that of mutuality, and in an environment of apparent power asymmetry, the
validity of this reciprocity is up for contention. Therefore, we would want to ascertain
how balanced is the exchange of obligated and delivered inducements perceived by
the gig worker in the context of his/her PC formation with the ridesharing app?
The actual delivery of promises by the employer is subject to a lot of dynamic
factors, including withdrawal or reneging due to unfavourable economic factors
(Morrison & Robinson, 1997) or inducements maybe even tailored to individual
needs to reward differently those employees who are deemed better performers
(Yang et al., 2020). Such an upward shift in inducements may even level off some
negative affect from previous experiences (Conway & Coyle-Shapiro, 2012).
Thus, it would be worthy of further examination to see how the fluctuating
sequence of inducements and their over/under fulfilment impacts the PC breaches
and feelings of subsequent violation, if any, for the employees and their job
satisfaction and commitment levels over time. Hence, we explore how
inducements’ dynamic nature cumulatively affects the employee PC and feelings
of breaches/violations over time?
Also, there is a possibility of within-person variations across employees
regarding perceiving PC breaches (Yang et al., 2020). Situated in a country with
such a vast and diverse population, Mumbai attracts the Indian migrant labourer
as a dream place to make it and find a panacea in terms of exploring a career
(Chheda & Patnaik, 2018). It is estimated that about 1.5 million cab drivers ride
for app-based cab aggregator services in India (Salve & Paliath, 2019). The
newbie drivers may assess the rate at which the ridesharing organisations keep up
with their obligated inducements and its timely delivery in a substantially different
manner from the institutionalised older drivers in the system. Such contextual
temporal and demographic divides have not been explored in the PC literature.
Such differences in the PC perception and its fulfilment by the app and the
resultant impact on PC end-state membership fluctuations would contribute to the
literature on workers’ PC pathways in the gig economy. Thus, we would like to
probe how differently the driver sample subpopulations react to PC fulfilment
fluctuations over time and the likely PC evaluation end states for these groups
through our study.
In case of a PC violation, the resolution period will have a start, stabilisation
and waning stages, which will be dependent on factors such as how dearly the
employee valued the inducement, the restoration efforts, previous breaches
experienced/accumulated and the coping response adopted by the employee
(Schalk et al., 2018). Employees are also observant of how their peers are faring
and managing when it comes to inducements (Rousseau et al., 2006). Being part
of driver peer groups would mean that one’s PCs maybe up for comparison against
a fellow driver, and it may serve as a reference point to the employees to frequently
base and measure their PC fulfilments. They may decide accordingly to adjust
their contributions, to balance any mismatches perceived in these comparisons. In
an algorithmic power asymmetry environment, the employee may also try and
restore some parity by their hacks- by altering their contributions or indulging in
counter work behaviours. Thus, the choice and the sequence of coping strategies
adopted by the employee to resolve the feelings of violation and its impact on the
PC temporally and the resultant end states merits a detailed examination in this
study. Hence, we probe how the post-PC violation coping strategy adopted by the
employee temporally develops and affects the PC end states and the key factors
that affect this process as it unfolds.
Methodology and Analysis

We used a qualitative case study method to study the PC end states developing in
the workers engaged in gig work with the two major app-based cab operators in
Mumbai, Uber and Ola. We identified those workers who had driven at least for a
year with either of these cab services and interviewed fifteen drivers (see Figure 1
for details) between January 2020 and March 2020 using semi-structured interviews.
The cab aggregators were chosen as they were the most prominent app-work
players in the ridesharing business in Mumbai and across India (Salve & Paliath,
2019). Thirteen percent of the sample worked for Uber, 20% for Ola and 67% across
both organisations by interchanging/switching between the apps. All the research
participants were male and in the age range of 23–40, with 20% driving self-owned
cabs and the rest (80%) on a mortgage. Thirteen out of the fifteen drivers had
migrated to Mumbai for better prospects, and nine out of these thirteen drivers had
come from their native places with the sole purpose of driving a rideshare service.
Using snowball sampling coupled with purposeful and opportunistic
sampling strategies, the authors would hail a ride and then proceed to inform the
driver about the study and carry ahead with a one-on-one interview during the
trip. The participant’s confidentiality and the anonymity of the respective
organisations they worked for were assured before each interview, and individual
participant consent was sought before audio recording the conversation. We
would start by explaining our study’s premise and detail what a PC and its
breach and violation meant. Upon getting confirmation from fifteen out of the
twenty drivers we had initially approached that they had at least one PC breach/
violence perception, we continued to probe each of those fifteen drivers using a
semi-structured questionnaire (while choosing not to consider the other five).
The major themes of the questions revolved around how it felt about working
based on an app, the promises made to them by the organisation, their
experiences, the autonomy promised and experienced, the impact of technology,
their impression of the pricing and rating system and their collective sensemaking
of the fairness of gig work with ridesharing organisations and how they coped.
The participants were asked to recollect incidents (Critical Incident Technique;
Flanagan, 1954) on all these areas, with a positive or negative impact, during
their stints with their respective organisations so far. We observed that when the
drivers expressed their breach experiences, it came with emotion laded words
with a change in tenor or body language exemplifying anger and confusion,
Table 1. Research Participant Demographics.
Name Age Years Driven Own Apps Witch Resorted to

S. No. (Changed) (Years) Previous Job For Org. Cab by the Driver PC Violation Description
1 Jacob 27 Insurance 2 No Yes Unfair performance evaluation by app
Agent
2 Hari 31 Agency driver 2 No Yes Difficulties with algorithmic management
3 Mandip 35 Agency driver 5 No Yes Unfair performance evaluation by app
4 Ramadhir 28 Cab driver 2 No No Lack of response from app-based
grievance redressal
5 Mustafa 30 Cab driver 1 No Yes Lack of response from app-based
grievance redressal
6 Govind 33 Cab driver 4 Yes Yes Unfair performance evaluation by app
7 Joseph 40 Agency driver 6 No Yes Difficulties with algorithmic management
8 Kumar 26 Salesman 3 No No Difficulties with algorithmic management,
No follow up on workplace benefit
promises
9 Murugan 34 Cab driver 5 Yes Yes Lack of response from app-based
grievance redressal
10 Ravi 23 Cab driver 1 No No Lack of response from app-based
grievance redressal
(Table 1. continued)
(Table 1. continued)
Name Age Years Driven Own Apps Witch Resorted to
S. No. (Changed) (Years) Previous Job For Org. Cab by the Driver PC Violation Description
11 Kabir 37 Agency driver 4 No Yes Falling fares & incentive structure not
improved
12 Gopal 31 Agency driver 3 No Yes No follow-up on workplace benefit
promises
13 Jitender 26 Cab driver 2 No Yes Falling fares & incentive structure not
improved
14 Hardeep 37 Cab driver 6 Yes Yes Lack of response from app-based
grievance redressal
15 Iqbal 31 Agency driver 3 No Yes Falling fares & incentive structure not
improved
Source: The authors.
signifying the presence of PC violation (Tomprou et al., 2015). Depending on

the traffic, destination and the gig worker’s driving style, interviews were often
unpredictable in duration, flow and range. At times, a conversation would be
lost if the driver had a tight corner or a toll booth payout interrupting the
conversation. The interviews’ length varied between 25 and 70 min, with an
interview lasting for an average time of 35 min.
By using thematic analysis (Creswell, 2014), the primary data (transcribed
verbatim into English from Hindi) was coded and analysed into three major
categories (auspicious starts, tapering contract trust and violation continuum
zones) using Microsoft Excel (see Table 1). The gig worker experiences were
freely coded by going through the transcripts line by line to form sub-themes
and the three broader core themes. The three authors were present from the first
round of coding, with author one and author two coding together and reaching
an agreement before seeking the third author for further refinement and
ensuring inter-rater consistency (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003). The second
author would once again independently check through for coding to ensure
inter-coder consistency.
First-order codes Second-order sub-themes Broad Themes
*Sustainable work terms offered

*Feasible income & profit promised Met Expectations
Auspicious
*Autonomy in job related decisions Better Ways of Starts
*Higher standards of living attained Living
*Rise in savings to relocate family

Looking Ahead
*Better work-life balance on offer
*Opaque work logistics Lack of Resources &

*Lack of flexibility in payouts Control
Tapering
*Intrusive algorithmic management App and its
*Undisclosed pricing logic (Un)Fairness
Contract
Trust
*Unmet revenue sharing assurances Unkept Promises
*Long due worker benefit schemes
*Reaching out via app messenger

*Seeking collective coping Voicing Out
responses
Violation
*Continued dissent & lobbying Maintaining Status Continuum
*Learned helplessness & survival Quo
Zones
*Switching between available apps Counter-algorithmic

*Collective counter work behaviours Jugaads
Figure 1. Overview of the Data Structure and Themes.

Source: The authors.
Findings
Auspicious Starts
We found that at the start of their stints with the organisation, especially
during the first six months, the drivers were sure of the ridesharing
organisation’s capability and quick ways of rewarding their work. Both Uber
and Ola did it in a fashion which elevated their driver-partners’ status in the
gig worker communities. They achieved this by developing a robust
organisational support and reward environment rooted in autonomy and
flexibility for their ridesharing partners.
Met Expectations
In this phase, the gig worker discovered that their rationale to join the online cab
driving business has paid off. They realise that money, assistance and technology-
wise it was so much better an experience than any previous jobs in Mumbai. In the
narrative below, Jacob (27) mentions how his experience to switch into a rideshare
organisation had paid off handsomely.
I found that from the time I approached their office until I got driving, it was very
convenient to join xyz. Everything was explained well, and I could learn the app in
a quick time. It was like a personal assistant, kept tab of my finances too. It all felt
high tech and like I had finally made it in Mumbai.
Hari (31) expressed delight at his new income source and finally finding some
spare time to spend in the city.
One thing that helped me so much was that I saved much time by not scampering for
change. I was so frustrated that I had to sometimes park the car and scamper to shops
nearby to change a `500 note for the passenger in my pre-pqr days. This is now
(fare) going straight to my wallet online. Customers are better too, fewer arguments
to deal with. Plus, I couldn’t complain about the incentives when I joined. It made
so much sense then.
Better Ways of Living

All the research participants did not doubt the flexibility these organisations could
afford for them. Making autonomous decisions on when and where to work was
evaluated as an inducement of top-notch value, as Mandip (35) recollects,
When I joined, I could entirely choose my time of work and place to drive. Earlier I
was at the beck and call of the travel agency I used to drive for, and now I am free
to take this call. I found that surge rates too good. It was more than what I had
expected at that time.
Ramadhir (28) was elated and realising his Mumbai dream as he discovered
financial freedom after three years of struggle in Mumbai and finally making the cut.
Back in my hometown, my wife and parents were so happy that ‘I had finally made
it’. In my earlier job, I could send in only `5,000 or `6,000 at max back home every
month. Now, in the first few months, especially before 2018’s Diwali I could save
15,000 with which we got a new TV at home. Felt proud then, that I could do all this.
I used to touch the app/phone screen before I start my day.
Looking Ahead
At this stage of socialisation, the drivers were at home with the autonomous ways
and the monetary freedom gig work brought. It afforded them more time, better
savings to spend or send back to family and thus brought in the sense of pride, as
Mustafa (30) recalls below,
I was planning to close off the EMI on the car by next year and bring my family to
Mumbai with what I was earning. Finally, after all these years of slogging in
Mumbai, it looked like my time had finally come. The app was easy to communicate.
Any of our doubts and payment arrears got cleared at the click of a request lodged.
I was told it would only get better going ahead. Even the customers used to ask us
how it all worked, and even they seemed impressed.
More success stories were shared with satisfaction expressed at the various
reward schemes on offer and yet not compromising the flexibility to work aspect,
as Govind (33) recalls,
It was so good at the start. I used to drive a kalipeeli (local black and yellow cabs of
Mumbai) for someone else before I started pqr. I liked the incentive scheme. It got
us big money on the weekends and festival days, unlike kalipeeli. Then I had even
asked my cousin at the village to get ready to come to Mumbai because I was
confident of leasing another car soon and cashing in. There was so much demand
that I could work just on the weekdays and take my weekends off. That was a first
for the 3 years I had been in Mumbai.
Tapering Contract Trust

With the app interface gradually upping the ante on micro-management, powered
by the organisation’s algorithmic management, drivers start to perceive
information asymmetries in this stage. Such dynamic asymmetries leave a lot to
desire in terms of a level playing field. As it controls drivers’ autonomy and
decision-making, with the fare pricing being still ambiguous and complicated for
them to figure out, a general sense of unease and doubts prevails in this stage.
Lack of Resources and Control
The opaque fare pricing and random sequencing of work logistics go against
the initial promises made to the app-workers and leaves them wondering, as
Joseph (40) discovers that the uncertainty and micromanagement are constants
in this line of work.
I wish I had some clue as to where my next trip was going to be. The only way to
know is to ask the customer on call before I pick them up, and most of them do not
like that. If I have to drive to Colaba at 6 pm, whereas my home is in Andheri
(opposite direction), I never make it home for dinner with the traffic. The notifications
are such a distraction, too, I do not need that suggestion to drive more. SMSs come
at midnight too. It is like we are not allowed to switch off only. The pressure to click
the ‘accept ride’ is always on.
The app refuses to provide provisions for the drivers to switch between fully
digital or cash payment mode for all the flexibility promised. Kumar (26) was also
tired of the constant feeling of surveillance and monitoring from the app and
observed that it has consequences for workers as time and effort goes waste.
It is not fair to have my day’s earnings go straight into the bank account/digital
wallet. I am usually dead tired as my last trip is around 2–3 am, and the last thing I
want is to go to the ATM for some spare change to buy food. People paying by cash
are so less, we should be given some leeway to accept only cash for some percentage
of trips every day. Moreover, another thing that gets on my nerve is these constant
notifications via the app. It does not keep quiet even if I stop to have tea. God knows
if all this was covered in the contract because obviously, half of that document we
do not get to understand!
App and Its (Un)Fairness

On-demand problem resolution is another promise that the organisations provide
yet fail to keep up as the sheer volume they cater to constraints their resolution
velocity. The drivers figure this out after a few frustrating run-ins with the app’s
messenger platform and start to lose confidence in the app’s grievance redressal
process, as Murugan (34) recounts,
Sometimes I have no clue for being charged for cancellations even after it is
communicated to the passenger or if the passenger complaints to the app, then usually
most of the time, it is on me. Furthermore, it is so much better for peace of the mind
to not follow up as the app will take ages to resolve. Sometimes I wish simple phone
calls could resolve stuff than have all these chats, emails and SMSs. It is not because
I am tech averse, I am 23 and have the latest smartphone (points to the phone).
Driver-partners were increasingly wary and dismissive of the app’s dynamic

pricing algorithm determining the fare for a ride. They expressed distrust in the
logic of pricing and the app not taking into account the rate fluctuations, even
after the drivers had started for the indicated surge areas. Ravi (23) echoed these
sentiments when he observed that he felt biased against as a driver.
I do not understand their surge pricing, none of us do. I am not even sure if they
(xyz) do (sarcastically laughs). By the time I reach the location with a 2× surge, it
would drop to 1.2×, without any warning. Now that is a waste of my time and fuel.
I had raised this many times in the app, but I get the usual standard reply. The second
thing is the customer rating. Sometimes if I tell off the passenger for spilling food on
the seat during the trip, it is within my rights. Now the passenger rates me 2 or 3 by
calling me rude, who is at fault? Nevertheless, it usually goes in the passenger’s
favour, and it is so tough to rationalise and argue for the driver.
Unkept Promises
All the drivers lamented how they had been gradually dealt with a raw deal. They
observed that it was getting difficult with every passing day. The promise of
autonomy and flexibility at work was just tokenism to push the algorithmic control
ways over their gigs. The dynamic and complex fare fixing, along with a high
commission (20%–25% of a ride) and deferred payouts, took a toll on the drivers.
Kabir (37) had a similar story to share,
Compared to when we started, the rates had fallen so much, and the commission has
only increased. Our margins are so much cut. This was precisely the opposite of what
we were promised. Also, nothing has come of the promise of a better incentive structure
they had offered last time. Worse even, the current incentives do not reflect immediately.
I lose track of it. I have to keep a separate app to keep a tab on what is pending!
With the continued lack of control and flexibility, evident from most of the
narratives, the drivers observed that both their earnings and perceptions of the app’s
algorithmic management took a hit. The constant feeling of being kept in the dark,
contrary to the advertised notion of transparency and maximising their revenue,
was taking a toll on their PC end states, as evident from Gopal’s narrative (31),
I have driven for three years now. We started with `40,000 or even `50,000 per
month back in the golden days. Now it was not very smart of us to believe that this
would last, but then that was what was assured! It was all okay till the first 6–8
months, and now we would be more than happy if we get to make half of it. We
would be grateful indeed (mock folds the hand into a namaste towards the app
screen). Nevertheless, at least keep the promise to pay our insurance and maintenance?
Violation Continuum Zones

The autonomy and flexibility of gig work do come with a few trade-offs. In a
precarious labour market, the rideshare organisations’ workforce surveillance
and control strategies to ‘nudge’ the drivers into action (Rosneblat & Stark,
2016) are challenging for them to avoid. When the organisations peddle such
a dominant narrative on the work conditions, the gig workers often perceive
PC violations- as promises are broken, demands unheeded to and fixes not
forthcoming. These irregularities and the emotional turmoil they face
(financial insecurity and hollow promises causing resentment and anger) force
them to cope and resist in their custom manner. The counterproductive work
behaviours and disengagement with app-based work follow suit, with the
workers engaging in sensemaking at their current environment to maximise
their profitability from gig work.
Voicing Out
After ascertaining the PC violation in this sensemaking stage, the drivers’
emotional responses ranged from disappointment and frustration to anger. Most
of the driver-partners’ primary response mechanism to reduce this contract
discrepancy was to reach out to the organisation (via the app and in-person) and
insist on a quick resolution. Jitender (26) followed this strategy to start with, as
explained in his response.
For the first 8–10 months, it was all right. I started to struggle from the start of this
year, and by now it is too much. We had to respond. What else can we do? It is with
such tension that I approach the month ends now. I drop messages in the chatbox and
email them that we cannot sustain at these rates. It is sometimes worse than an auto
rickshaw. A group of us, four of us, even went to their office, but no avail. They
always ask us to wait for the ‘official response’ in the app.
Hardeep (37) mentioned that he was now finding it tough to pay the car’s EMIs.
He wanted to understand how this anomaly (where his fares and number of trips
had dropped despite a good performance rating) was passable for a big organisation
such as xyz and wanted the organisation to rectify the situation soon. He says,
We keep protesting (in the app messenger) how many more cabs are they going to
add to the streets! We are already struggling with considerable drops in savings, and
they keep increasing their fleet by some excuse or calculation! The ground reality is
that it is squeezing us for the last three years. Alternatively, at least extend the credit
line for our EMIs on the cars if they want us to drive. There is no response. Even
despite good ratings, we are driving without a clue. We can only hope.
Mustafa (30) driving a pqr since the last one year, had migrated to Mumbai and
found it tough to make ends meet.
Since the complaints we lodged in the app did not work, we sought the union’s help
and met the pqr office staff. They say their hands are tied and that things would get
better with time. We tell them that some of us are pawning our spouse’s jewellery to
stay afloat for the last six months. It has been a few weeks since then, but no follow
up from their end. The notifications keep coming steadily (points to the phone). In
our drivers’ WhatsApp group, we still morally support each other and hope to get
better. Most of us feel trapped.
Gig workers, such as Mustafa, tried to reach out via all possible channels to
rectify the situation, including the collective bargaining options they could access.
After the euphoria of initial years died down and extinguishing all the possible
problem-focused approaches at their disposal, no solutions were emerging and
thereby forcing them to the PC end states captured across the next two sub-themes.
Maintaining Status Quo
By this stage, we found that the gig workers had given up individual mode of
reporting PC discrepancies to the organisation and were extensively mobilising
collective support and other means of local political lobbying to rectify their
situation. Most of them were past their initial days of offered promises via the
organisation’s formal and individual channels. It was deemed useless by driver-
partner, such as Mandip (35), who had been driving for the last two years,
Now only collective support can save us. We cannot afford to throw the job away
and go ahead as I have just borrowed cash for my son’s school fees. I went to join
the protest by the union outside their office last month. Next week we are meeting
the local MLA (Member of Legislative Assembly). I feel helpless; all of us do.
However, what other options do we have? We have invested heavily (into this) over
the last few years.
Joseph (40) told us that he was being pragmatic and looking at what can be
salvaged from the situation he found himself in. As their repeated attempts at
reducing the imbalance of economic exchange go unnoticed, gig workers turn to
other grievance redressal modes, seen as a last resort. He explained it thus,
I was working for an agency, and I lost that job when it shut down. Now I cannot
lose this also. Where will I and my family go? So, I continue amidst all this monthly
making ends meet drama! I hope the government does something and hikes the fare
because we have tried reasoning to the company representatives, and nothing has
come out of it.
Counter-algorithmical Jugaads
The time spent with the app and getting acquainted with the organisational strategy
in using algorithmic management to limit their ambit and access to necessary
information, the workers experience PC violation at an acute level. Over this
period (usually from their second year as per our research participants), they tend
to move away from the organisation’s projected realities and totally disengage
from the narratives or promises offered. At this juncture, they start to look for
hacks and alternatives to game the system. As Murugan (34) says,
Yes, we cut corners, what other option do I have? I have been around for some time
now. I do not feel anything for a company that does not value our sweat, blood and time.
I drive these days by switching between the apps, one in the morning and the other in
the evenings. Asking passengers to cancel the trip midway and offering them a slightly
lesser fare is another jugaad. It is still better than paying them the cut. It is a win-win for
the passenger and me, no? I do this without any remorse because you (the app) do not
deliver anything (unmet promises), so why should I be the only one playing by the
rules? I was also taught this trick by my fellow driver bhaiyyas (elder drivers), and now
I am part of a WhatsApp group where I help newcomers by teaching them all these.
The drivers start to think as a collective, with peer groups in social media
strategising to develop alternatives to break out of the app’s control structures.
These jugaads, or informal workarounds to fix a problem in the short term with
available resources, are hashed out and implemented by the drivers. They do this
without any second thoughts on the implications it may bring in for their
relationship with the ridesharing organisation. Kabir (37) explains as he observes,
It is teamwork for us now. Our driver group is active throughout. We have tips
shared between each other on where the rush areas are, where to avoid, best hotspots
and current surge rates, and the longest-lasting rate areas. We have figured it all out,
as smart as the app we are (points to the app-device) now! We have been driving for
5–6 years now. We also ask the passengers to go for inter-city rides if the trip is to a
far suburb as it is a better deal for us if it is a beaten-down familiar route.
The disillusionment harboured by the gig workers hits the roof at this stage.
Backed by strong peer support and prevailing economic hardships arising out of
their contracts not offering the promised value, they stop subscribing to the
organisational rationality altogether. They find ways and justify such jugaad, with
the logic of day-to-day survival, as Iqbal (31) puts it,
At the end of the day, after deducting fuel and maintenance, it is not even enough to
pay my rent and put food on our plates in Mumbai. Sir, you tell me what do I do
(looks at me through the rear-view mirror)? I am pushed to do some jugaad. That is
the only alternative to survive. Every day, for at least 3–4 trips, I ask the customer to
cancel and pay in cash/google pay for a lesser fare. Even after cancellation,
sometimes, it is profitable for me. If they do not treat us well, why should we bother
about them losing customers or revenue? It is a safe hack to try, especially in the
morning and evening surge. Passengers do not have a choice then. Most of us in my
friends’ circle do this.
Discussion
Thus, it is evident that there is a case of gig workers forming PCs with the app in
the initial phase of their tenure, with a slew of attractive fares and benefits being
offered by the ridesharing organisations. Over time, they discover imbalances and
information asymmetries with the app’s algorithmic management leading to PC
breaches and emotions of anger and frustration (PC violation). These violations
impact their effect and initiate a discrepancy feedback loop—as the cumulative
effect of the non-resolution of obligated inducements worsens in time. The
discrepancy feedback loop is employed from the unfolding of the first shock,
continually checking their contract validations until a point of disengagement
arrives. By delineating how the gig worker interacts with an AI-enabled interface,
develops a PC and identifying its further pathways, we address calls for further
research in the area on such human-app exchanges from a PC perspective (Bankins
& Formosa, 2020; Broadbent, 2017).
We found that this process unfolded over three distinct phases. The auspicious
starts, where an over fulfilment of inducements by the ridesharing organisation
integrates the app-workers into their AI-enabled functioning with a slew of
benefits and a better standard of life that they could not afford in the labour market
previously. The start tapers off when the gig worker, into the second phase of
organisational socialisation, begins to experience uneasiness and sense a lack of
control and further complexities in the form of a rigid app interface and unmet
promises. Since this is a stage where the negative experiences have not
accumulated, the workers register these initial discrepancies only at a breach

level. A few months later, these experiences blow over to fully-fledged violations.
Employees then sense a total lack of autonomy and algorithmic information
asymmetries in contrast to what was offered when they joined.
We discovered they attempt to rectify this severe breach by initially voicing it
out in a problem-focused manner (Rousseau et al., 2018; Tomprou et al., 2015).
We also found that, if this phase of voicing out went to no avail, they disengaged
themselves quickly. Drivers were then beyond any organisational directives and
went on to devise hacks or ingenious jugaads as a form of counterproductive
work behaviour (CWB)—aimed at bettering their precarious situation. They
accomplished all this by depending heavily on a peer network, whose collective
previous experience-based inputs acted as crucial turning points in this collective
sensemaking of PC discrepancies and the ridesharing organisation’s resolution
intent. An essential contribution we could make to the post-violation coping
literature could be by identifying the older workers’ (those with more than two
years in the gig platform) mentoring practices, in enabling the relatively newer
ones to adapt and thrive within their perceived imbalances. The newer workers
(under 12 months of total experience in the gig platform) lingered longer and had
hopes of voicing directly. In contrast, lateral dissent and jugaad seemed to be the
older ones’ preferred methods. Thus, we address a gap in the PC themes and
variables literature as pointed out by Kutaula et al. (2020) in their recent review
on psychological contract in Asia, by highlighting the peer groups’ influence,
along with the experience/tenure level and past perceptions of the affected
employee and its influence on the PC end states developed. We observe no return
to a maintenance phase, contrary to as suggested in the post-violation model,
across both the newer and older workers (Tomprou et al., 2015). Neither did they
remain in the renegotiation phase by proceeding instead by disengaging themselves
and exhibiting consistent disdain for the app’s organisational directives. In the
process, we also add to the limited literature on psychological contract violation,
especially from a south-Asian perspective (Kutaula et al., 2020).
Across the narratives, we could observe that time and accumulating events of
repetitive breaches had a role in each of these three themes panning out. Between
the functional and dysfunctional end states the gig workers found themselves in,
they gave the benefit of the doubt to the app, then began with a problem-focused
coping approach as the breach violations persisted, before adopting CWB
measures at the point of no return (disengagement). This finding is consistent with
previous studies (Kassing, 2009; Schalk et al., 2018). These studies observed that
employees who were experiencing PC breach/violations adopted an upward
shifting strategy while intensifying their dissent at obligated inducements not
delivered by the organisation. From our study, it is clear though that dissent
strategy in a constant upward shift was short-lived and that the gig workers in a
precarious labour market could not keep pushing forever and soon deserted their
PCs and resorted to jugaad for bettering their prospects. The less experienced
workers were guided by the older ones in this process, as observed in our
narratives. The drivers were very aware that their hands were forced, and once
they initiated their switch into this PC end state, there were no more bridges left
to burn with their organisations. Apart from the app-based work setting we based
our research on, these findings could aid in further or similar PC based research
exploring the impact of work-status of the employee and how it affects the
fulfilment/breach and subsequent contract end-states across industries such
manufacturing and other service-based organisations for instance. By focusing on
the PC breach and violations emerging across a distributed employee-app
relationship, we score an important goal for PC research (across domains) by
placing it on an understudied social context ‘where temporal and spatial boundaries
of paid work have got extended’ (Griep et al., 2019; Perrons, 2003). For instance,
our study can propel further research exploring the PC formation of employees in
a work setting with decent work-based challenges.
Overall, the study contributes to the PC breach and violation literature by
underlining how the unique social context and resultant interactions impact these
PC end states’ formations and the creative and ingenious (jugaad) ways the gig
worker devises to cope with such states over a while. By incorporating the
temporal aspect into the study in a retrospective manner, we address calls by
scholars to study the development of PC and its outcomes over time (Rousseau et
al., 2018) in a digitally enabled work environment (Van Der Schaft et al., 2020)
and to account for the impact of new ways of working on a contingent workforce
across understudied contexts (Kutaula et al., 2020). Moreover, by the clarity our
qualitative examination was able to bring into the study, we have addressed a call
for research on unravelling the temporal and complex psychological contract
pathways in such an explorative manner (Woodraw & Guest, 2020).
Theoretical and Practical Implications

In our study, the employee’s PC violation recovery path went through similar
stages as drawn out in the PC’s dynamic phase model by Rousseau et al. (2018).
The dynamic phase model’s recursive feedback loop, where the employee
remained in one stage for as long as required before settling back into the
maintenance phase, was absent from the narratives in our study once the gig
worker entered into the counter-algorithmic mindset. This deviation underlines
one of the most significant differences in the approach between a regular employee
and a gig worker, highlighting the precarity in which the latter operates. In our
study’s post-violation phase, the gig worker has no option beyond a point of time
to stick with continuous efforts in reducing his/her perceived discrepancy in the
delivered versus promised inducements. Being invested heavily in the ecosphere
of gig work, he/she has no cushion to wait for things to unfold back to normality
(auspicious start days) as alternative job options are hard to come by.
Here, we bring in the disengagement of the gig worker via his/her involvement
in jugaad and other CWB measures (a restricted coping choice majorly prompted by
the economic precarity they find themselves in) as a significant shift away from the
repair-maintenance phase loop of Rousseau et al. (2018). Even after initially adopting
problem-focused voicing as a coping choice, the sequential cumulation of PC violation
events and the non-fulfilment of obligations leads the gig worker into a state of
permanent detachment. Our empirical understanding of this gradual peaking of breach

instances leading to disengagement’s final plateau adds to previous studies that
mention the non-linearity of breach perceptions with time (Rigotti, 2009; Woodrow &
Guest, 2020). We found that resolution velocity or fulfilment efforts cease to create an
impression on the gig worker beyond this plateau, where they start to resort to jugaad.
Therefore, it would make sense for organisations employing gig workers to
address their perceptions of breaches and violations at an early stage and via an
inclusive communication platform. For instance, the app interface making changes
to accommodate gig worker grievances with stipulated turnaround time and a
mutual agreement would be a good start. A clear communication channel outlining
the expectations and offering workarounds in the case of a perceived breach or
violation can foster the exchange relationship between the gig worker and the
organisation in a healthier manner. Keeping on intensifying the efforts to restore
trust between the organisation and the gig worker, redrafting the contract and
ensuring that the transactional contents of it are mutually obliged before relational
promises are offered, could be a few of the measures these ridesharing organisations
can undertake towards a sustainable business and employee experience model.
Limitations and Future Research

Even though we could track down how the events after the PC violation unfolded,
the exact nature and impact of how previous experiences could have also played
in developing the gig worker’s current PC end state is not explicitly brought out.
Moreover, the possibility of multiple PCs being formed (for instance, between the
driver-partner and the customer) could be explored in detail for its effect on the
breach perceptions and overall coping strategy then adopted by the gig worker.
Another limitation is the retrospective nature of inquiry we had adopted. Our
tracking of time shifts between decision points and end state transitions of the gig
workers could only be recollected in hindsight by the gig worker. A richer and
varied number of critical incidents could be captured if a daily or weekly diary
study method was employed, including the role of resolution turnaround time. As
our efforts at opting for such a method were severely constrained by the
respondents’ unique economic and other conditions (time, space and educational
backgrounds), it could be explored in future studies and across geographies. Future
studies could also look into the organisation’s perspectives and how gig labour is
positioned in their workforce experience pipeline. The employer’s perception of
PC and its associated obligations can further enrich this social exchange’s
mutuality, compared to the employee-focused approach undertaken in our study.
We would also encourage future studies to explore the unfolding of PC end
states by taking the lived experiences of a larger sample of gig workers. Our pool
of research participants was limited to fifteen respondents. The study’s sample
size was impacted due to the pandemic-induced lockdown restrictions, which
came into effect and displaced the authors from Mumbai. The demographic
dividend amongst research participants could be more varied in a larger sample
and lead to a richer interpretation of PC end-state transitions.
Conclusion
Our study inquired into the lived experiences of driver-partners of the two major
ridesharing organisations in Mumbai and how PC violations materialised and
developed between the gig workers and their app-based platforms. Though
initially, the drivers found the working environment to be almost over fulfilling,
their perceptions of flexibility and autonomy were put to the test by the algorithmic
micromanagement measures employed by the ridesharing organisations. After
repetitively voicing their concerns and falling short of expected inducements from
their employers, these driving partners (boosted by collective coping and
mentoring efforts from their community) resort to intuitive and ingenious hacks
(jugaad) to fix their predicament. This deviance results in mental disengagement
and stasis for the gig workers, turning counterproductive to the ridesharing
organisation’s efforts. To sum it up, we temporally capture the gig worker’s
polarities across the autonomy they hoped for and the one they enjoy (albeit with
many algorithmic controls). In this process, we explore how the drivers navigate
these conflicting pathways in their own mental and behavioural capacities to flow
along with or jugaad/game the algorithm.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of
this article.
ORCID iD
Rahul Sivarajan https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0220-1335
References
Ahsan, M. (2020). Entrepreneurship and ethics in the sharing economy: A critical perspec-
tive. Journal of Business Ethics, 161(1), 19–33.
Ali, H. (2020). Mutuality or mutual dependence in the psychological contract: A power
perspective. Employee Relations: The International Journal, 42(1), 125–148.
Auerbach, C., & Silverstein, L. B. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and
analysis (Vol. 21). NYU Press.
Ballinger, G. A., & Rockmann, K. W. (2010). Chutes versus ladders: Anchoring events
and a punctuated-equilibrium perspective on social exchange relationships. Academy
of Management Review, 35(3), 373–391.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organisational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248–287.
Bankins, S. (2015). A process perspective on psychological contract change: Making sense
of, and repairing, psychological contract breach and violation through employee cop-
ing actions. Journal of Organisational Behavior, 36(8), 1071–1095.
Bankins, S., & Formosa, P. (2020). When AI meets PC: Exploring the implications of
workplace social robots and a human-robot psychological contract. European Journal
of Work and Organisational Psychology, 29(2), 215–229.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. John Wiley & Sons.
Boswell, W. R., Boudreau, J. W., & Tichy, J. (2005). The relationship between employee
job change and job satisfaction: The honeymoon-hangover effect. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90(5), 882.
Braganza, A., Chen, W., Canhoto, A., & Sap, S. (2020). Productive employment and
decent work: The impact of AI adoption on psychological contracts, job engagement
and employee trust. Journal of Business Research, 1, 1–10.
Broadbent, E. (2017). Interactions with robots: The truths we reveal about ourselves.
Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 627–652.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2001). On the self-regulation of behavior. Cambridge
University Press.
Carver, C., & Scheier, M. (2002). Optimism. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.),
Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 231–243). Oxford University Press.
Chan, N. K. (2019). ‘Becoming an expert in driving for Uber’: Uber driver/bloggers’ per-
formance of expertise and self-presentation on YouTube. New Media & Society, 21
(9), 2048–2067.
Chang, C. H. D., Johnson, R. E., & Lord, R. G. (2009). Moving beyond discrepancies:
The importance of velocity as a predictor of satisfaction and motivation. Human
Performance, 23 (1), 58–80.
Cheng, M., & Foley, C. (2019). Algorithmic management: The case of Airbnb. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 83, 33–36.
Chheda, K., & Patnaik, A. (2018). Organizing informal female workers in India:
Experiences from the construction industry of Mumbai. In M. Atzeni & I. Ness (Eds.),
Global perspectives on workers’ and labour organisations (pp. 141–156). Springer.
Conway, N., & Briner, R. B. (2005). Understanding psychological contracts at work: A
critical evaluation of theory and research. Oxford University Press.
Conway, N., & Briner, R. B. (2009). Fifty years of psychological contract research: What
do we know and what are the main challenges. International Review of Industrial and
Organisational Psychology, 24(71), 71–131.
Conway, N., & Coyle‐Shapiro, J. A. M. (2012). The reciprocal relationship between
psychological contract fulfilment and employee performance and the moderating
role of perceived organisational support and tenure. Journal of Occupational and
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A., & Neuman, J. H. (2004). The psychological contract and individ-
ual differences: The role of exchange and creditor ideologies. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 64(1), 150–164.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE
Publications.
Darling, K. (2017). ‘Who’s Johnny?’ Anthropomorphic framing in HRI, integration, and
policy. In P. Lin, K. Abney, & G. Bekey (Eds.), Robot ethics 2.0 (pp. 173–192).
Oxford University Press.
de Jong, J., Rigotti, T., & Mulder, J. (2017). One after the other: Effects of sequence
patterns of breached and overfulfilled obligations. European Journal of Work and
Delobbe, N., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., & De Hoe, R. (2016). A new look at the psychologi-
cal contract during organisational socialization: The role of newcomers’ obligations at
entry. Journal of Organisational Behavior, 37(6), 845–867.
Dourish, P. (2016). Algorithms and their others: Algorithmic culture in context. Big Data
& Society, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716665128
Duggan, J., Sherman, U., Carbery, R., & McDonnell, A. (2020). Algorithmic management
and app-work in the gig economy: A research agenda for employment relations and
HRM. Human Resource Management Journal, 30(1), 114–132.
Ford, M., & Honan, V. (2019). The limits of mutual aid: Emerging forms of collectiv-
ity among app-based transport workers in Indonesia. Journal of Industrial Relations,
61(4), 528–548.
Forgas, J. P., & George, J. M. (2001). Affective influences on judgments and behavior in
organisations: An information processing perspective. Organisational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 86(1), 3–34.
Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327.
Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. In T. Gillespie, P. J. Boczkowski, & K.
A. Foot (Eds.), KA (2014). Media Technologies.
Griep, Y., Cooper, C., Robinson, S., Rousseau, D. M., Hansen, S. D., Tomprou, M.,
Conway, N., Briner, R., Coyle-Shapiro, J. A-M., Horgan, R., Lub, X. D., de Jong,
J., Kraak, J. M., O’Donohue, W., Jones, S. K., Vantilborgh, T., Yang, Y., Cassar, V.,
Akkermans, J., & Linde, B. J. (2019). Psychological contracts: Back to the future. In
Y. Griep & C. Cooper (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychological contract at
work (pp. 397–414). Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
Griep, Y., & Vantilborgh, T. (2018). Reciprocal effects of psychological contract breach
on counterproductive and organisational citizenship behaviors: The role of time.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 104, 141–153.
Griep, Y., Vantilborgh, T., Hansen, S. D., & Conway, N. (2018). Unravelling the role of
time in PC processes. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 813.
Hall, J. V., & Krueger, A. B. (2018). An analysis of the labour market for Uber’s driver-
partners in the United States. ILR Review, 71(3), 705–732.
Hansen, S. D., & Griep, Y. (2016). Psychological contracts. In J. P. Meyer (Ed.), Handbook
of employee commitment (pp. 119–135). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Holtom, B., Goldberg, C. B., Allen, D. G., & Clark, M. A. (2017). How today’s shocks
predict tomorrow’s leaving. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32(1), 59–71.
Hom, P. W., Mitchell, T. R., Lee, T. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (2012). Reviewing employee
turnover: Focusing on proximal withdrawal states and an expanded criterion.
Psychological Bulletin, 138(5), 831.
Kassing, J. W. (2009). ‘In case you didn’t hear me the first time’: An examination of repeti-
tious upward dissent. Management Communication Quarterly, 22(3), 416–436.
Kraak, J. M., & Linde, B. J. (2019). The usefulness of the psychological contract in the
21st century. In Handbook of research on the PC at work. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Kraak, J. M., Altman, Y., & Laguecir, A. (2018). Psychological contract meets cultural
theory: A study of self-initiated expatriates. International Studies of Management &
Organisation, 48(4), 386–402.
Kraak, J. M., Lakshman, C., & Griep, Y. (2020). From top gun to the daily grind:
Contextualizing psychological contract breach for military pilots. European Journal
of Work and Organisational Psychology, 29(2), 243–261.
Kutaula, S., Gillani, A., & Budhwar, P. S. (2020). An analysis of employment relationships
in Asia using psychological contract theory: A review and research agenda. Human
Resource Management Review, 30(4), 100707.
Lee, M. K., Kusbit, D., Metsky, E., & Dabbish, L. (2015, April). Working with machines:
The impact of algorithmic and data-driven management on human workers.
Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing sys-
tems, 1603–1612.
Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (1994). An alternative approach: The unfolding model of
voluntary employee turnover. Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 51–89.
Luca, M., & Zervas, G. (2015). Fake it till you make it: Reputation, competition, and yelp
review fraud (Working Paper No. 14-006). Harvard Business School NOM Unit.
MacDonald, R., & Giazitzoglu, A. (2019). Youth, enterprise and precarity: or, what is, and
what is wrong with, the ‘gig economy’? Journal of Sociology, 55(4), 724–740.
Mazmanian, M., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2013). The autonomy paradox: The impli-
cations of mobile email devices for knowledge professionals. Organisation Science,
24(5), 1337–1357.
Möhlmann, M., & Zalmanson, L. (2017, December 10–13). Hands on the wheel: Navigating
algorithmic management and Uber drivers. Proceedings of the 38th International
Conference on Information Systems.
Montes, S. D., & Irving, P. G. (2008). Disentangling the effects of promised and delivered
inducements: Relational and transactional contract elements and the mediating role of
trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1367.
Montes, S. D., Rousseau, D. M., & Tomprou, M. (2015). Psychological contract theory.
Wiley Encyclopedia of Management, 11, 1–5.
Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model
of how psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review,
22(1), 226–256.
Orlikowski, W., & Scott, S. V. (2015). The algorithm and the crowd: Considering the
materiality of service innovation. MIS Quarterly, 39(1), 201–216.
Parzefall, M. R., & Jacqueline, A. M. (2011). Making sense of psychological contract
breach. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26(1–2).
Perrons, D. (2003). The new economy and the work–life balance: Conceptual explorations
and a case study of new media. Gender, Work & Organization, 10(1), 65–93.
Pongratz, H. J. (2018). Of crowds and talents: Discursive constructions of global online
labour. New Technology, Work and Employment, 33(1), 58–73.
Rigotti, T. (2009). Enough is enough? Threshold models for the relationship between psy-
chological contract breach and job-related attitudes. European Journal of Work and
Robinson, S. L., & Wolfe Morrison, E. (2000). The development of psychological con-
tract breach and violation: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organisational Behavior,
21(5), 525–546.
Rosenblat, A., & Stark, L. (2016). Algorithmic labour and information asymmetries: A
case study of Uber’s drivers. International Journal of Communication, 10, 27.
Rousseau, D. (1995). Psychological contracts in organisations: Understanding written
and unwritten agreements. SAGE Publications.
Rousseau, D. M. (2001). Schema, promise and mutuality: The building blocks of the psy-
chological contract. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 74(4),
511–541.
Rousseau, D. M., & McLean Parks, J. (1993). The contracts of individuals and organisa-
tions. Research in Organisational Behavior, 15, 1–1.
Rousseau, D. M., Hansen, S. D., & Tomprou, M. (2018). A dynamic phase model of the
psychological contract processes. Journal of Organisational Behavior, 39(9), 1081–
1098.
Rousseau, D. M., Ho, V. T., & Greenberg, J. (2006). I-deals: Idiosyncratic terms in employ-
ment relationships. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 977–994.
Salve, P., & Paliath, S. (2019, July 7). Overworked and underpaid, India’s ‘gig work-
ers’ are survivors of a flawed economy. Scroll.In. https://scroll.in/article/926146/
overworked-and-underpaid-indias-gig-workers-are-survivors-of-a-flawed-economy
Schafheitle, S., Weibel, A., Ebert, I., Kasper, G., Schank, C., & Leicht-Deobald, U. (2020).
No stone left unturned? Toward a framework for the impact of datafication technolo-
gies on organizational control. Academy of Management Discoveries, 6(3), 455–487.
Schalk, R., De Ruiter, M., Van Loon, J., Kuijpers, E., & Van Regenmortel, T. (2018).
Actively coping with violation: Exploring upward dissent patterns in functional, dys-
functional, and deserted psychological contract end states. Frontiers in Psychology,
9, 54.
Scheiber, N. (2017, April 2). How Uber uses psychological tricks to push its drivers’ but-
tons. The New York Times.
Shipp, A. J., & Jansen, K. J. (2011). Reinterpreting time in fit theory: Crafting and recraft-
ing narratives of fit in medias res. Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 76–101.
Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1994). The psychological contract as an explanatory frame-
work. Trends in Organisational Behavior, 1, 91–109.
Solinger, O. N., Hofmans, J., Bal, P. M., & Jansen, P. G. (2016). Bouncing back from
psychological contract breach: How commitment recovers over time. Journal of
Organisational Behavior, 37(4), 494–514.
Sutton, G., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Integrating expectations, experiences, and psycho-
logical contract violations: A longitudinal study of new professionals. Journal of
Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 77(4), 493–514.
Taylor, M. S., & Tekleab, A. G. (2004). Taking stock of psychological contract research:
Assessing progress, addressing troublesome issues, and setting research priorities. The
Employment Relationship: Examining Psychological and Contextual Perspectives,
253, 283.
Thompson, J. A., & Bunderson, J. S. (2003). Violations of principle: Ideological currency
in the psychological contract. Academy of Management Review, 28(4), 571–586.
Tomprou, M., Rousseau, D. M., & Hansen, S. D. (2015). The psychological contracts
of violation victims: A post‐violation model. Journal of Organisational Behavior,
36(4), 561–581.
Van Der Schaft, A., Lub, X., Van der Heijden, B., & Solinger, O. N. (2020). The influ-
ence of social interaction on the dynamics of employees’ psychological contracting in
digitally transforming organisations. European Journal of Work and Organisational
Psychology, 29(2), 164–182.
Wang, D., Hom, P. W., & Allen, D. G. (2017). Coping with newcomer ‘Hangover’: How
socialization tactics affect declining job satisfaction during early employment. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 100, 196–210.
Wood, A. J., Graham, M., Lehdonvirta, V., & Hjorth, I. (2019). Networked but commodi-
fied: The (dis) embeddedness of digital labour in the gig economy. Sociology, 53(5),
931–950.
Woodrow, C., & Guest, D. E. (2020). Pathways through organisational socialization:
A longitudinal qualitative study based on the psychological contract. Journal of
Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 93(1), 110–133.
Yang, Y., Griep, Y., & Vantilborgh, T. (2020). Exploring temporal changes in obligated
and delivered inducements: a dynamic systems perspective. European Journal of
Work and Organisational Psychology, 29(2), 183–199.
Zhao, H. A. O., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. C., & Bravo, J. (2007). The impact of
psychological contract breach on work-related outcomes: A meta-analysis. Personnel
Psychology, 60(3), 647–680.

sivarajan-et-al-2021-to-jugaad-or-not-how-mumbai-s-gig-workers-thrive-against-psychological-contract-discrepancies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

sivarajan-et-al-2021-to-jugaad-or-not-how-mumbai-s-gig-workers-thrive-against-psychological-contract-discrepancies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Article

To Jugaad or Not? South Asian Journal of Human R ­ esources

Rahul Sivarajan1 , Aparna M. Varma2 and Reshmi1

Submitted: 8 October 2020; Revised 1: 17 December 2020; Accepted: 11

experienced discrepancies to renegotiate the contract to a relatively better (thriving)

Artificial Intelligence (AI) enabled autonomy is sold as a crucial differentiating

the app’s algorithmic micromanagement interact in practice. If there are indeed

Methodology and Analysis

Name Age Years Driven Own Apps Witch Resorted to

signifying the presence of PC violation (Tomprou et al., 2015). Depending on

First-order codes Second-order sub-themes Broad Themes

*Sustainable work terms offered

*Rise in savings to relocate family

*Opaque work logistics Lack of Resources &

*Reaching out via app messenger

*Switching between available apps Counter-algorithmic

Figure 1. Overview of the Data Structure and Themes.

Better Ways of Living

Tapering Contract Trust

App and Its (Un)Fairness

Driver-partners were increasingly wary and dismissive of the app’s dynamic

Violation Continuum Zones

accumulated, the workers register these initial discrepancies only at a breach

Theoretical and Practical Implications

permanent detachment. Our empirical understanding of this gradual peaking of breach

Limitations and Future Research

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

You might also like

To Jugaad or Not? South Asian Journal of Human R esources