Social contract and psychological contract: a comparison

Abstract

Purpose -The concept of contract contributes extensively to an essentialist conception of the organization (the contract would then be its essence), a descriptive method (describing the organization as a contract or set of contracts), and a normative standpoint. More recently, it has been epitomized by the "psychological contract". The concept of contract is about will, agreement, obligation, promise, commitment, staying true to one's commitments, cooperation, sanction and bond. The purpose of this paper is to discuss these manifestations prior to comparing the notion of social contract with psychological contract based on two criteria: an anthropology of the individual and an anthropology of the contract. Design/methodology/approach -After delineating the notion of contract (and its correlates agency, gift, exchange and association) and reviewing the "epithet-based" contracts, the two dimensions of the contract (social and psychological) will be addressed and compared based on two anthropologies, one of the individual and one of the contract. Findings -This comparison underscores the relevance of contractualism today and the richness of comparing across different eras and perimeters. If these two aspects have anything in common, it is whatever links the contract with sociality. Research limitations/implications -This comparing process must underscore two limitations, namely anachronism (the two texts were written two centuries apart), and underpinning, a political underpinning in the social contract and an organizational underpinning in the psychological contract. It thus looks as though the organization was made of the same substance as the nation, which -like the notion of governance -may lead to some kind of confusion between contract and constitution, contracting power and constituent powers. Practical implications -The paper discusses a key notion in political philosophy and organization science. Originality/value -The paper presents a comparison between two key conceptions of the notion of contract.

The job insecurity of others: On the role of perceived national job insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic

“…Personal job insecurity may indicate to individuals that the government has failed in its obligation to provide stable work. Indeed, the notion of social contract, which formed the basis for the notion of psychological contract ( Pesquex, 2012 ), originated from discussions about the contract between a government and its citizens: ‘For example, the governed promise to pay taxes, obey the laws, and share the risk of defense in exchange for security, protection, and opportunity for development provided by the state’ ( Roehling, 1997 : 205). In line with these arguments, a number of articles link personal job and financial insecurity to political distrust and dissatisfaction, suggesting that people blame their government for these conditions and may view them as a breach of the psychological contract ( Emmengger et al, 2015 ; Haugsgjerd and Kumlin, 2020 ; Mughan et al, 2003 ; Van Hootegem et al, 2021 ; Wroe, 2014 , 2016 ).…”

Leader-member exchanges and psychological contract: testing for interaction effects

“…The psychological contract could be of great significance to the Ugandan situation in employee-employer relationships, because this reciprocal interdependence in the employment relationship presents an important basis for employee engagement at work (Saks and Belcourt, 2006) and employees' emotional attachment and attitude towards the organization (Hallberg and Schaufeli, 2006). Furthermore, the Ugandan setting could gain from a fulfilled psychological contract because it accentuates organizational commitment (Pesqueux, 2012), increases exhibition of employees' organizational citizenship behaviors (Bal et al, 2010), enhances employee retention levels (Sutton and Griffin, 2004) and improves job performance (Coyle-Shapiro and Conway, 2004). Barbuto and Hayden (2011) argue that the psychological contract is rooted in the leader-member exchange (LMX) theory.…”

Rethinking the ontology of the shareholder model of the corporation

“…This is done through first providing a historical analysis of two different trajectories of thinking that have given rise to two distinct models of capitalism, namely contractarian and communitarian. Both are recognized as forms of social contract with each having a unique will, agreement, obligation, promise, commitment, staying true to one's commitments, cooperation, sanction and bond (Pesqueux, 2012). Then we analyse a way forward from the current predicament of shareholder capitalism drawing attention to the need to better balance corporate and societal needs which the current crop of regulatory mechanisms cannot effectively address.…”