Level 2
Level 1

H9 - Trust


44 words 0 ignored

Ready to learn       Ready to review

Ignore words

Check the boxes below to ignore/unignore words, then click save at the bottom. Ignored words will never appear in any learning session.

All None

Ignore?
trust.
Organisational behaviour relies strongly on
collaboration is the norm. For this, trust plays an important role, since it is hard to unravel the motives and behaviours of your coworkers.
In organisations,
gain from trust.
Both individuals and groups
leadership and individual outcomes (e.g. job performance and organisational commitment).
A meta analysis (Dirks, & Ferrin, 2002) states a significant connection between
cooperate when they trust one another. High trust seems to have this influence, since people do not expect to be misused by the other.
Trust plays a role in mixed-motive tasks: people tend to
using fair procedures. When people trust the leader, they tend to cooperate when they get a say.
The trust one has in a leader can be increased by
but also the procedural decision making process.
This shows not only cooperation benefits from trust,
good exchange partner, from which performances benefit.
When people can be described as trustworthy, they are more often considered a
7%.
Winnings of a basketball team were the effect of trust in the coach for almost
reach a group goal instead of a personal goal.
Also, when team members trusted each other more, they tended to
when trust is broken, those benefits disappear.
As seen above, trust has several benefits. Unfortunately,
not uncommon for trust to be broken.
In the world of organisations, it is
trusts the senior organisational leaders.
Only four out of ten employees
the management had broken their trust.
Also, over fifty percent of employees state
it is a true challenge to repair.
When trust is broken,
1. Attributions; 2. Social equilibrium; 3. Negotiation.
In general, the 3 viewpoints on repairing trust are:
competence, integrity, and benevolence.
Attributions. Most commonly, there has been an offense. This causes the employee to perceive the traits and intentions of the employer as negative. Also, this causes the employee not wanting to be vulnerable in the future. The repair of this type of trust must focus on
Apology and taking ownership of the offense.
In short term, what can help to repair trust?
promises for the future.
Also, the repairing process of trust can be speeded up by
manage the negative consequences instead of providing positive information.
However, other studies claim apologising is not that good, as it involves the admission of guilt. This indicates it might be a better solution to
one success can be a decent show of competence, but one failure can show incompetence.
A schematic model of dispositional attribution stated
show honest behaviour, while people with low integrity could be showing dishonest behaviour, depending on the situation.
Also, people tend to think people with high integrity also
their integrity as low immediately.
When someone shows dishonest behaviour, people perceive
apologise, because people tend to see this as an act of willingness to perform better in the future.
The effects of an apology are dependent on the type of offense: when the offense is about competence, it is better to
does not outweigh the thought you're of low integrity.
When the offense is about integrity, an apology
does not provide proof you will not do it again.
When the offense is about integrity, being reserved also is not a good response, as it
When people see the locus of causality, the controllability, and/or the stability as immensely stable.
Also, when is trust repair a hard thing to do?
the relationship with the employer. This can result in a social disequilibrium.
After an offense, also interpersonal relations are damaged. Not only the employer will be considered questionable (as stated within attributions), but also
some social rituals should be performed, including apologies, penance, and punishment.
To restore this social equilibrium,
exact financial compensation.
Studies show financial overcompensation is better to restore trust than
seemed to restore cooperation.
Another study examined both giving an apology (attribution) and a social reparation (social equilibrium). Although trust was not directly measured, this combination
apologies only work when the employee feels respected.
Not only the employer at fault, but also the employee play a role in the process of repairing trust between the two. For example,
the employer wants to be trusted because of instrumental concerns, not because of being trustworthy. The employee on the other hand, does not think the employer deserves more trust. (-> weet niet of dit klopt en snap het ook niet)
The bilateral model of trust repair (BTR, Kim et al., 2009) =
1. Was the employer at fault; 2. Should the fault be administered to the person or to the situation; 3. When (partly) administered to the person, could this be repaired or is it a sign of character?
This opposites create a dynamic situation in which both employer and employee try to resolve their issues. This BTR is shown visually in figure 9.1 (pp. 222). The BTR shows 3 stadias:
the repairing of trust between individuals, and see if this can be in any way transferred to repairing trust in organisations.
What happens when an organisation in it is whole is at fault, and trust in the organisation must be repaired, is hardly studied. Studies should focus on
power and trust.
We know for sure there is a connection between
makes one vulnerable.
Having less power
more responsibility and control.
The previously discussed BTR model offers some insights: 1. People tend to assume high power means
the individual is blamed more.
2. When power is high,
the employee will see this as a lack of integrity. (-> snap ik niet)
3. When power increases,
power, since they control the available resources.
4. The employee will be more motivated to trust when the employer has
reward strategy, while powerless people trusted more after a punishment strategy. (-> snap ik niet)
Powerful people trusted more after a
it remains delicate.
Finally, studies could consider the question whether or not trust could be fully repaired. The authors think even though trust is repaired,
attitudes from the past do not disappear from memory but will be named as wrong when new information pops up. Sometimes, the past attitudes arise without the label 'wrong', which will influence behaviour. (-> snap ik niet)
The Past Attitudes are Still Here (PAST) model (Petty et al., 2006) =