Qantas Job Cuts: The Psychological Contract and Resistance to Change Applied

Job cuts are never just a cost story. When a big company announces that hundreds of roles are going, the people most affected are often the ones who keep their jobs and have to decide whether they still trust the place they work for.

This week’s announcement from Qantas is a good example for students. In this “Apply the theory” article we’ll look at it with two ideas from organizational behavior: the psychological contract and resistance to change. If you’d like the background first, our article on social exchange theory explains the give-and-take thinking that sits underneath the psychological contract.

What Happened at Qantas?

On 10 November 2026, Qantas told staff it would cut 850 jobs in Australia as part of a new multi-year partnership with the consulting firm Accenture. According to the BBC and ABC News, the changes will start in finance, procurement, human resources and marketing, with some of that work moving to Accenture teams “mostly” in India and some in Australia. The first changes are expected by mid-2027.

According to the BBC, Qantas employs about 28,000 staff in Australia, so the cuts are a small share of the total workforce. But they’re concentrated in corporate roles, and the Australian Services Union (ASU) told ABC News that most of the affected jobs are based in Sydney.

Qantas CEO Vanessa Hudson explained the decision in an email to staff. She said the airline runs on “more than 1,000 legacy applications that were never designed to work together”, and that the deal would help the company “redesign and simplify parts of how our corporate functions work and reduce duplication”. According to the BBC, she also wrote that “this is hard news for some and I’m sorry for the uncertainty it brings”. Qantas said affected staff would be redeployed where possible.

The union saw it very differently. ASU assistant national secretary Scott Cowen told ABC News that the union had been told earlier “that there was no plan for 1,000 jobs to be offshored”, and that the announcement was “really shocking news for our members”. The ABC also reported that the prospect of around 1,000 job losses was first reported by the Australian Financial Review in August, and that the union says staff were reassured at the time that the figure was incorrect.

That’s what has been reported. We don’t know what was said inside Qantas beyond that, so we’ll be careful to apply the theory to the public facts only.

Theory 1: The Psychological Contract

An employment contract is a written document. It covers pay, hours, leave and so on. But most employees also carry around an unwritten set of beliefs about what they owe the organization and what the organization owes them back. That’s the psychological contract.

The idea goes back to the 1960s, but the version most OB courses use comes from Denise Rousseau, who defined it in 1989 as an individual’s beliefs about the terms of the exchange between them and their employer. The important word is “beliefs”. The contract lives in the employee’s head, so two people in the same team can hold quite different contracts.

Rousseau and others split it into two broad types:

  • Transactional contracts: short-term and mostly about money. “I do the work, you pay me.”
  • Relational contracts: longer-term and built on loyalty and trust. “I’ll stay, put in extra effort and learn your systems, and in return you’ll offer me security and a future here.”

So what happens when the employee feels the organization hasn’t kept its side? Researchers separate a breach (the employee’s judgement that a promise wasn’t kept) from a violation (the anger and sense of betrayal that can follow). In a well-known 1994 study, Sandra Robinson and Rousseau followed business graduates through their first two years of work and found that a majority reported their employer had broken at least one promise. Those who did were less likely to trust their employer and more likely to leave.

In other words, breaches are common. What matters is how people interpret them.

Applying the Psychological Contract to the Qantas Story

Let’s think about a hypothetical person: Mia, who has worked in a large airline’s finance team for nine years. (She’s an invented example, not a Qantas employee.) Over that time she’s probably built up a relational contract. She’s learned the company’s systems, stayed through tough periods, and expects that loyalty to count for something.

Now Mia hears that her function will be partly outsourced over the next few years. Even if her own role turns out to be safe, the terms of her unwritten contract have just changed. Long service might no longer bring security. That’s a breach in her eyes, whether or not any written promise was broken.

The union’s claim about earlier reassurances matters here too. We can’t say what Qantas staff were or weren’t told. But the theory tells us something useful: if employees believe they were told one thing and then something different happened, that belief alone is enough to turn a breach into a violation. Robinson and Rousseau’s work suggests that’s where trust and intentions to stay start to fall.

Which also means the survivors matter. Most of Qantas’s 28,000 Australian staff aren’t losing their jobs. But plenty of them will be watching how this is handled and quietly updating their own psychological contract. Some might move from a relational contract to a more transactional one: “I’ll do my job, but I won’t go the extra mile.” That ties in closely with what we covered in the three components of organizational commitment, because affective commitment (staying because you want to) is the type most at risk.

Theory 2: Resistance to Change

Our second theory is more familiar. In our article on resistance to change, we looked at Kotter and Schlesinger’s (1979) four common reasons people push back against change:

  • Self-interest: people expect to lose something they value.
  • Misunderstanding and lack of trust: people don’t understand the change or don’t trust the people leading it.
  • Different assessments: people genuinely see the costs and benefits differently from management.
  • Low tolerance for change: some people find uncertainty hard to live with.

Applying Resistance to Change to the Qantas Story

What’s interesting about this case is that all four reasons show up in the public reporting, at least in some form.

Self-interest is the obvious one. People in finance, procurement, HR and marketing have jobs and careers at stake.

Different assessments are clear from the quotes. Management describes the change as modernising old technology and reducing duplication. The union describes it as sending jobs offshore. Both sides are looking at the same deal and weighing it very differently. Neither view is automatically “resistance” in the negative sense. As we noted in the earlier article, some pushback is a sign that people care about the outcome.

Lack of trust links straight back to the psychological contract. If the union’s account of earlier reassurances is how members see it, then the trust needed for a smooth change is already damaged before the change begins.

And low tolerance for change? The timeline here runs “over coming years”, with the first changes by mid-2027. That’s good in one sense, because people get notice. But it also means a long period of not knowing who will be affected. For people who struggle with uncertainty, that can be harder than a quick decision.

What Can Managers Learn From This?

Imagine you’re a team leader in a company going through something similar. You didn’t make the decision, but you have to keep your team working. What can you actually do?

  • Be honest about what you know and don’t know. The fastest way to turn a breach into a violation is for people to feel they were misled. If you don’t know whether a role is affected, say so.
  • Explain the reasons. Hudson’s email gave a business reason (legacy systems and duplication). Whether staff accept it is another matter, but people resist less when they understand the “why”.
  • Treat redeployment as real, not a line in a press release. For the psychological contract, what the organization does for the people who leave is watched closely by the people who stay.
  • Don’t forget the survivors. Check in with team members who aren’t directly affected. They may be the ones quietly deciding to start looking elsewhere.
  • Listen to the different assessment. The union’s concern about skills going offshore is a substantive argument, not just an emotional reaction. Engaging with it is part of what our article on change management calls bringing people with you.

The Limits of This Analysis

We need to be careful. We’re applying theories from the outside, based on a few news reports in the first days after the announcement. We don’t know how Qantas staff actually feel, what was said in internal meetings, or how the consultation with unions will go. The union’s account of earlier reassurances is the union’s account, and it’s attributed as such.

It’s also worth remembering that the psychological contract is individual. Some employees will shrug this off. Others will feel deeply let down. The theory helps us predict the likely patterns, not how any one person will react.

And there’s a business side we haven’t judged here. Companies do need to update their systems, and the theory doesn’t tell us whether the decision itself is right or wrong. It tells us what the decision is likely to do to trust, commitment and resistance, and that’s useful for any manager to understand.

Key Points to Take Away

  • In November 2026, Qantas announced 850 job cuts in Australia as part of an outsourcing and technology partnership with Accenture, starting in corporate functions by mid-2027.
  • The psychological contract (Rousseau, 1989) is the unwritten set of beliefs about what employees and employers owe each other. Long-serving staff often hold relational contracts built on loyalty and security.
  • Job cuts can feel like a breach of that contract, and if people believe they were misled, a breach can become a violation, with lower trust and more people thinking of leaving.
  • The survivors matter as much as those who leave, because they update their own contracts based on how the change is handled.
  • Kotter and Schlesinger’s reasons for resistance to change (self-interest, lack of trust, different assessments and low tolerance for change) all show up in the reporting.
  • For managers, honesty, a clear explanation, real support for affected staff and attention to the people who stay are the practical lessons.
Sources

Related Posts

Scroll to Top