Rebuilding Trust: The Psychological Contract and the Ethics of Care
How can we rebuild trust in our organisations when people feel let down, unheard, or uncertain about their place and value, and what role does an ethics of care play in restoring that connection? When people no longer feel seen, safe, or fairly treated, formal policies and procedural fairness alone may not be enough to repair the damage.
In their recent Harvard Business Review article, “The Workplace Psychological Contract Is Broken. Here’s How to Fix It,” Anne-Laure Fayard and John Weeks argue that a deeper issue is affecting many organisations: a breakdown in the unspoken psychological contract between people and the institutions they work within.
They suggest that traditional approaches to fairness, based on policies, procedures, and uniform treatment, are increasingly out of step with how people understand trust and relational accountability today. In their view, moving from an ethics of justice to an ethics of care may offer a more meaningful way forward.
What Is the Psychological Contract?
The psychological contract is not written into employment agreements, yet it plays a powerful role in how people engage with their work. First described by Harvard Business School’s Chris Argyris and further developed by Denise Rousseau, it refers to the expectations and assumptions that exist between people and the organisations they work within. At its core is a sense of mutual obligation: I contribute, and you recognise and support that contribution in a way that feels fair.
When this unspoken contract is upheld, people are more likely to feel motivated, valued, and connected. But when it’s broken, when expectations shift without communication, context, or care, people can experience frustration, disillusionment, or even harm. As Rousseau noted, “A damaged relationship is not easily restored.”
The Ethics of Care Lens
Fayard and Weeks draw on the ethics of care to offer an alternative way of thinking about fairness in organisations. Developed through the work of feminist thinkers such as Carol Gilligan, Nel Noddings, and Joan Tronto, the ethics of care is rooted in the idea that humans are relational and interdependent.
The ethics of care perspective highlights the importance of relationships, empathy, and compassion in moral decision-making, contrasting with traditional perspectives that focus on abstract rules and principles.
Rather than applying the same rules to everyone in the name of consistency, the care lens invites leaders to ask: What is happening in this person’s context? What do they need? How are they affected? It recognises that fairness isn’t always about sameness, it’s about attentiveness, responsiveness, and the quality of our relationships.
In practice, this means shifting from policy-first thinking to person-first thinking. It doesn’t remove accountability or boundaries, but it does emphasise that people be seen and heard in context.
Three Questions to Guide Ethical Leadership
One of the most helpful contributions of Fayard and Weeks’ article is a simple but powerful framework, adapted from the work of care ethicists in organisational settings. They invite leaders to reflect on three questions:
What is right?
What are our responsibilities in this situation? What values or principles are at stake?What works?
What will be effective, not just in theory, but for this team, this person, this moment?What matters?
What do people care about? What are the emotional, relational, or contextual factors that need to be taken seriously?
These questions can guide decision-making in supervision, governance, and leadership. They help shift the focus from control to connection, from uniformity to thoughtful responsiveness.
Embedding Care into Supervision and Leadership
Whether supervising staff, responding to concerns, or leading teams, applying an ethics of care can support better outcomes and more sustainable relationships. It helps leaders respond with integrity when expectations are mismatched, when tensions emerge, or when people feel they are not being heard.
Importantly, care is not a soft or sentimental approach. It requires curiosity, emotional awareness, and a willingness to engage with complexity. Fayard and Weeks suggest that leaders operating from this lens are more like anthropologists or social workers than rule enforcers—listening, asking questions, and paying attention to what’s often unsaid.
An ethics of care doesn’t eliminate the need for boundaries or standards. But it does remind us that fairness is not just about treating everyone the same, it’s about seeing people clearly, responding to what they need, and being willing to engage in the relational work of leadership.
From Concept to Culture
Building a care-based culture isn’t about creating new policies, it’s about cultivating new habits. Fayard and Weeks point to three guiding principles that help organisations do this:
Relational proximity: prioritising connection and genuine dialogue, not just compliance or reporting
Transparent principles: being clear about decisions and open about why they’re made
Attentive adaptability: recognising that people and situations vary, and allowing space for informed flexibility
Together, these create the conditions for trust to grow, and for the psychological contract to be rebuilt in ways that are relational, ethical, and sustainable.
Ethics of Care Based Reflective Exercise
To apply an ethics of care lens in practice within your organisation, try the following team exercise:
Objective
Use the three guiding questions—What is right?, What works?, and What matters? to explore and find solutions to a real issue your team is currently facing. Reflecting on these questions will help achieve outcomes and create habits that are grounded in care.
Identify an Issue
As a team, agree on a current challenge or dilemma. This could relate to communication, workload, safeguarding, or any situation needing attention.
Discuss the Issue Using the Three Questions
Spend 20 minutes reflecting on each question:
What is right?
What are our ethical responsibilities here? What values or principles should guide our response?What works?
What practical steps will actually help in this situation? What solutions are realistic for this team and context?What matters?
What are the feelings, relationships, or context we need to consider? Who will be affected and how?
Share and Reflect
Share key insights and suggested actions.
Agree on Next Steps
Together, decide on practical steps that balance fairness, effectiveness, and care.
Building Trust and Safety in Practice
Alongside the importance of psychological safety, incorporating an ethics of care into your leadership or supervision can strengthen trust, rebuild the psychological contract, and support a culture where people feel safe, respected, and heard.
When you take the time to ask what is right, what works, and what matters, you signal that people and relationships matter and that fairness isn’t just about consistency, but attentiveness and care.
Psychological safety makes it possible for people to speak up without fear. An ethics of care deepens that safety by recognising each person’s unique experience. Together, they offer a foundation for ethical leadership, meaningful supervision, and cultural change that prevents harm and supports accountability.
To explore how these ideas connect with your context, and to learn more about building a culture of safety, trust and prevention, explore our Abuse Prevention Through Culture Change Framework.