Editor's Introduction

Abstract

Social media, social networks, social technology, social terms, social selling, social business, social enterprise, social era, social capitalism, social computing, social venture, social entrepreneurship, social impact, social learning, social investment, social responsibility, social web, social intelligence…okay, you get the picture. We are becoming enveloped in an increasingly social world characterized by fluid models of openness and collaboration in organizational behavior. This transformation emanates from the works Hobbs, Locke, and Rousseau, all philosophers who believed that social contract theory consisted of a set of rules that regulated behavior, which rational people would accept, on the condition that others accept them as well. The collection of articles in our current issue is evidence this profound change is underway. New social contracts are emerging. Each of our featured articles is focused on a group that has been standing in the shadows of social interactions. Individuals belonging to these groups have been disenfranchised from the social contracts enjoyed by more mainstream group members. The common theme among the articles appears to be the needs and efforts of disenfranchised groups of the 20th century and their supporters to renegotiate the social contract. In her article, “The Phenomenon of Later-Life Recareering by Well-Educated Baby Boomers,” Rice draws attention to the growing trend among Baby Boomers over age 59 who are wishing to step up in their careers. This emergent group of mature adults is defying characterization that is typically regarded as being too old for entering a new career or for advancing in existing careers. These individuals are renegotiating a social contract with social organizations of a formal or informal context within the larger society. Members of the LGBTQ community are renegotiating the social contract with the larger society to gain new recognition as individuals and partners within multiple organizational contexts. In his article, “Policy Characteristics for the Prevention of Workplace Bullying Anteceded by Heterosexism: A Delphi Study,” McCalla raises important questions as to whether organizations need to establish protective policies in workplaces for specific groups such as LGBTQ employees. In their article, “The Psychology of Transference: Gender and Access to Training—The Mechanisms of Disadvantage,” McIntosh, Prowse, and Archibong explore the pathways taken by working women who do not wish to choose between career and family and are renegotiating the traditional social contract regarding motherhood. Women with children may lose valuable opportunities for advancement as an outcome of an active family life. The symposium articles for this issue continue our focus on social contracts In the article, “Manipulative Monkeys: Research as Design,” Underdahl examines, through an extensive literature review, primate behavior, so that we see examples of negotiated social contracts emerging in humanities' direct ancestors. In the review of “Still Alice, an Independent Film,” Veazie explores Early-Onset Familial Alzheimer's Disease. We follow Alice, a 50-year-old woman who has Alzheimer's, as she struggles to keep her identity intact. Alice sees that she must renegotiate her social contract within her family and professional construct. She is a brilliant thinker pre-Alzheimer's and comes up with a radical response that aligns with her pre-Alzheimer's goals and attributes. Gavin's article, “The Importance of Place,” examines life experiences through the organizational ethnographic lens. These ethnographic studies are about discovering who we are at a particular time and place. Gavin reflects on how culture emerges within an organization and becomes the informal social contract. Finally, we have a lively article by Shean, “Mindless Learning vs. Critical Thinking: Educators Must Teach How to Think.” Shean believes that “dumping information” on students using rote memory techniques and treating their minds as repositories cause these students to eventually lose complete interest in school and learning. He explains this type of social contract as a constraint on active learning. He contrasts this with the students who use a new social contract, which includes critical thinking expectations and skills based on learning how to think and how to evaluate these thinking processes. My hope is that these articles serve their intended purpose and have our readers pause and reflect on other contracts being renegotiated. Based upon the contributions of the scholars featured in our current issue, one thing we know for sure is that the transformation is under way.