The Communication Contract and Its Ten Ground Clauses

  • Birgitta Dresp-Langley


Global society issues are putting increasing pressure on both small and large organizations to communicate ethically at all levels. Achieving this requires social skills beyond the choice of language or vocabulary and relies above all on individual social responsibility. Arguments from social contract philosophy and speech act theory lead to consider a communication contract that identifies the necessary individual skills for ethical communication on the basis of a limited number of explicit clauses. These latter are pragmatically binding for all partners involved and help to ensure that the ground rules of cooperative communication are observed within a group or an organization. Beyond promoting ethical communication, the communication contract clarifies how individual discursive behaviour can be constructively and ethically monitored by group leaders in business meetings. A case study which shows what may happen when ground clauses of ethical communication are violated is presented. The conclusions of the study highlights why attempting to respect the communication contract is in the best interest of all partners at all levels within any group or organization.


philosophical foundations of business ethics social contract theory speech act theory ethical communication communication contract 


  1. Ankerl, G. 1980, Toward a Social Contract on a Worldwide Scale (ILO, Geneva).Google Scholar
  2. Austin, J.L. 1962, How to Do things with words (Oxford University Press, Oxford).Google Scholar
  3. Babcock, J.C., Waltz, J., Jacobson, N. S., & Gottmann, J.M. (1993). Power and violence: the relation between communication patterns, power discrepancies, and domestic violence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 40–50. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.61.1.40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baron, J. (1990). Thinking about consequences. Journal of Moral Education, 19, 77–87. doi: 10.1080/0305724900190202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S.E. 1991, “Grounding in communication” In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, and S. D. Teasley (eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (American Psychological Association, Washington), pp. 127–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E.F. (1987). Collaborating on contributions to conversations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 2, 19–41. doi: 10.1080/01690968708406350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T.W. (1994). Towards a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative Social Contracts Theory. Academy of Management Review, 19, 252–284. doi: 10.2307/258705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T.W. (1995). Integrative Social Contracts Theory: A communitarian conception of economic ethics. Economics and Philosophy, 11, 85–112.Google Scholar
  10. Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T.W. 1999, Ties that bind: A social contracts approach to business ethics (Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
  11. Edelsky, C. (1981). Who’s got the floor? Language in Society, 10, 383–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ghiglione, R. 1997, L’homme communiquant (Armand Colin, Paris).Google Scholar
  13. Grice, H. P. 1975, “Logic and conversation”, in P. Cole, and J. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts (Academic Press, New York), pp. 113–128.Google Scholar
  14. Grice, H. P. 1981, “Presupposition and conversational implicature”, in: P. Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics. (Academic Press, New York), pp. 183–198.Google Scholar
  15. Haberland, H., & Mey, J.L. (2002). Linguistics and pragmatics, 25 years after. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1671–1682. doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00149-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hobbes, T.: 1651, ‹Leviathan’,
  17. Huang, Y. (2004). Is symmetrical communication ethical and effective? Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 333–352. doi: 10.1023/B:BUSI.0000043494.17425.c6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Itakura, H. (2001). Describing conversational dominance. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1859–1880. doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00082-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Reid, T. 1843, Essays on the Active Powers of the Human Mind: Inquiry into the Human Mind on the Principles of Common Sense (Whitefish, MT, Kessinger Publishing).Google Scholar
  20. Reinsch, N.L. (1990). Ethics research in business communication: The state of the art. Journal of Business Communication, 27, 251–272. doi: 10.1177/002194369002700303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rousseau, J.-J.: 1762, ‹The Social Contract’,
  22. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematic for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. doi: 10.2307/412243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sartre, J.P. 1945, L’existentialisme est un humanisme (Gallimard, Paris).Google Scholar
  24. Schegloff, E.A. 1982, “Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of “uh huh” and other things that come between sentences”, in D. Tannen (ed.), Analyzing discourse, text and talk. Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics 1981 (Georgetown University Press, Washington), pp. 71–93.Google Scholar
  25. Schegloff, E.A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–382. doi: 10.2307/413107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Searle, J. 1969, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).Google Scholar
  27. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: ‹Contractarianism’,
  28. Ten Have, P. 1991, “Talk and institution: A reconsideration of the “asymmetry” of doctor-patient interaction”, in D. Boden, and D. H. Zimmerman (eds.), Talk and social structure: Studies in ethno-methodology and conversation analysis (Polity Press, Cambridge), pp. 138–163.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LMGC, UMR 5508 CNRSUniversité MontpellierMontpellier Cedex 5France

Personalised recommendations