Suchergebnisse

PurposeThis research aims to separate the effect of a promise from an apology, examine interactional justice as a theoretical mechanism explaining the relationship between these accounts and post‐violation trust, examine how message content compares to the gesture of sending a message, and test offense severity as a moderator.Design/methodology/approachThis study employed the Trust Game.FindingsResults indicated significant apology × promise and apology × promise × offense severity interactions on interactional justice, and interactional justice fully mediated the relationship between promises and post‐violation trust.Research limitations/implicationsAlthough this study was completed using a laboratory game with anonymous partners, results suggest that interactional justice provides a means for relationships to quickly get back on track after a violation. Specifically, promises provide "forward‐looking" information (trustworthy intent) and interpersonal sensitivity (demonstration of courtesy and concern) that enable interactional justice to affect subsequent trust.Practical implicationsThese findings attest to the efficacy of clear accounts to foster interactional justice; in particular, apologies lead to higher interactional justice for less serious offenses. Furthermore, accounts that are "forward‐looking" lead to higher post‐violation trust via interactional justice perceptions.Originality/valueRecent empirical studies suggest that apologies are associated with higher post‐violation trust, but, unlike this article, have not explicated this process or its boundary conditions.

This article draws on the interactionist model of ethics as a framework to help students answer two key questions they will confront in their future careers: (a) How can I, as a professional manager, deter clearly unethical behavior among my subordinates? and (b) How can I avoid engaging in clearly unethical behavior myself? For each of these questions, a short case is presented as a teaching tool that illustrates the application of the interactionist model.

Purpose
This paper aims to investigate how the reparative efforts of extensive apologies, compensation and structural change affect trust after a violation has occurred. Specifically, this paper presents a cognitive process model positing that voluntary reparative efforts will shape the victim's stability attributions for the cause of the violation such that it will be deemed less stable (i.e. unlikely to recur); as a result, the victim is more likely to perceive the transgressor as being fair, and hence extend subsequent trust.


Design/methodology/approach
Two experiments were conducted to test the cognitive process model.


Findings
The results of both experiments supported this predicted sequence for extensive apologies. Support for the predicted sequence was also found when compensation and structural change are invoked as reparative efforts.


Originality/value
This research has theoretical and practical implications for a more nuanced understanding of how causal attribution theory and organizational justice theory can be integrated within the context of trust repair.

Research on the relationship between integrity and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) has been inconsistent and confusing. We trace some of the confusion to the way that the integrity construct has been defined in the literature. Some researchers have conceptualized integrity as word-action consistency and congruence between the actor's values and the values of observers judging that action, often through a moral lens (moral integrity [MI]). More recently, a second group of researchers has restricted the domain of integrity to word-action alignment alone (behavioral integrity [BI]), separating out the values congruence component. In this article, we consider word-action consistency and values congruence as separate but linked constructs that interact when predicting OCBs. Across two samples, we present evidence that the positive relationship between BI and certain OCBs is strengthened when values congruence is higher. We elaborate on the implications of these findings for both theory and practice.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to describe why trust congruence is important to negotiation, illustrate potential types of trust congruence in negotiating dyads, and link those types of congruence to joint‐behavioral outcomes.Design/methodology/approachStudies pertinent to negotiators' trust in one another are reviewed, and based on prior theoretical and empirical work, propositions are developed to posit how different types of trust congruence or incongruence can predict joint‐behavioral outcomes in an integrative negotiation context.FindingsThis analysis offers a potentially valuable framework for deepening the understanding of how trust affects interpersonal relationships and the negotiations that occur within them.Originality/valueThis paper extends prior work on trust that has linked unilateral trust in one's negotiating partner to behavioral outcomes by considering how a bilateral measure of trust (trust congruence) will affect these outcomes.