Social Contracting as a Trust-Building Process of Network Governance
Abstract
Social contracting has a long and important place in the history of political philosophy (Hardin, 1991; Waldron, 1989) and as a theory of justice (Baynes, 1989; Rawls, 1971). More recently, it has been developed into an individual rights-based theory of organizations (Keeley, 1980, 1988), and as a way to integrate ethics and moral legitimacy into corporate strategy and action (Donaldson, 1982; Freeman&Gilbert, 1988). Currently, it is being proposed as an integrative theory of economic ethics (Donaldson&Dunfee, forthcoming). This paper will extend the Donaldson and Dunfee approach by arguing thatsocial contracting can best be understood and applied in organizational settings if it is perceived and treated as a network governance process. This insight can benefit management scholars and practitioners alike, since it calls attention to the processes by which trust is created and sustained in on-going contractual relationships. It also strongly suggests that a new approach to applying managerial discretion, asmoral agency, is needed to realize the full competitive and ethical potential of emerging network forms.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Both team trust and a collaborative culture enable better communication, information sharing, focus and greater co-operation, thereby leading to greater creative efforts.
“Both team trust and a collaborative culture enable better communication, information sharing, focus and greater co-operation (Larson & LaFasto, 1989;Strutton, Pelton & Lumpkin, 1993;Calton & Lad, 1995;Littler, Leverick & Bruce, 1995;Whitener et al., 1998), thereby leading to greater creative efforts.”
From Antecedents of Team Creativity: An Examination of Team Emotional Intelligence, Team Trust and Collaborative Culture (2010) · cites this paper as Calton & Lad, 1995
Cites
Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1997) · Reis · doi:10.2307/40183951 · Cited by 11,113 · see citing works
Comparative Economic Organization: The Analysis of Discrete Structural Alternatives
Williamson, O. E. (1991) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393356 · Cited by 7,151 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
STAKEHOLDER MISMATCHING: A THEORETICAL PROBLEM IN EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON CORPORATE SOCIAL PERFORMANCE
Wood, D. J., & Jones, R. E. (1995) · The International Journal of Organizational Analysis · doi:10.1108/eb028831 · Cited by 1,069 · see citing works
Barczak, G., Lassk, F., & Mulki, J. (2010) · Creativity and Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00574.x · Cited by 479 · see citing works
- Authors
- Calton, J. M., & Lad, L. J.
- ORCID
- Lad, Lawrence J.
- Venue
- Business Ethics Quarterly
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1995-04
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 271-295
- ISSN
- 1052-150X (ISSN-L)
- 2153-3326
- OpenAlex
- W2027517474
- Cited by
- 100
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 13.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Business Ethics Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Digital Commons @ Butler University (Butler University) (submittedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Ethics in Business and Education
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
- Keywords
- network governance, trust building, moral agency, managerial discretion, economic ethics, organizational ethics, contractual relations, moral legitimacy, business strategy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
