人头会滚蛋的!在CEO违规后有效修复信任的途径

IF 1.9 Q3 MANAGEMENT Journal of Trust Research Pub Date : 2018-01-02 DOI:10.1080/21515581.2017.1419877
D. Ferrin, Cecily D. Cooper, K. Dirks, P. Kim
{"title":"人头会滚蛋的!在CEO违规后有效修复信任的途径","authors":"D. Ferrin, Cecily D. Cooper, K. Dirks, P. Kim","doi":"10.1080/21515581.2017.1419877","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT CEO transgressions are a common storyline in today's business press. Such incidents result in the need to repair trust for both the CEO and the organisation that the CEO leads. Existing empirical research on trust repair has focused primarily on interpersonal trust, resulting in a body of knowledge that provides many insights to the errant CEO but few insights for those who aim to repair trust in the organisation. Since organisations also need to regain the trust of stakeholders after a CEO transgression, research on organisational trust repair is clearly warranted. Organisations have options for trust repair that are not available to individuals (e.g. dismissing the transgressor), these actions may be initiated by parties other than the culpable party (e.g. the Board of Directors), and the mechanisms underlying organisational versus interpersonal trust repair may differ. However, trust in CEOs and their associated organisations may also be intertwined since the CEO is the symbolic representative of the organisation. To better understand how organisations and CEOs can repair trust in the aftermath of a CEO transgression, we conduct a scenario experiment examining two tactics that are commonly used in practice: CEO dismissal, and CEO apology + penance. We also examine the proposed underlying mechanisms of perceived repentance and perceived disentitativity. Results indicate that both tactics can influence trust in the CEO as well as the organisation, and that perceived repentance and perceived disentitativity mediate the effects of Board responses on trust in the CEO but not on trust in the organisation.","PeriodicalId":44602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trust Research","volume":"8 1","pages":"30 - 7"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21515581.2017.1419877","citationCount":"12","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Heads will roll! Routes to effective trust repair in the aftermath of a CEO transgression\",\"authors\":\"D. Ferrin, Cecily D. Cooper, K. Dirks, P. Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/21515581.2017.1419877\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT CEO transgressions are a common storyline in today's business press. Such incidents result in the need to repair trust for both the CEO and the organisation that the CEO leads. Existing empirical research on trust repair has focused primarily on interpersonal trust, resulting in a body of knowledge that provides many insights to the errant CEO but few insights for those who aim to repair trust in the organisation. Since organisations also need to regain the trust of stakeholders after a CEO transgression, research on organisational trust repair is clearly warranted. Organisations have options for trust repair that are not available to individuals (e.g. dismissing the transgressor), these actions may be initiated by parties other than the culpable party (e.g. the Board of Directors), and the mechanisms underlying organisational versus interpersonal trust repair may differ. However, trust in CEOs and their associated organisations may also be intertwined since the CEO is the symbolic representative of the organisation. To better understand how organisations and CEOs can repair trust in the aftermath of a CEO transgression, we conduct a scenario experiment examining two tactics that are commonly used in practice: CEO dismissal, and CEO apology + penance. We also examine the proposed underlying mechanisms of perceived repentance and perceived disentitativity. Results indicate that both tactics can influence trust in the CEO as well as the organisation, and that perceived repentance and perceived disentitativity mediate the effects of Board responses on trust in the CEO but not on trust in the organisation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44602,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Trust Research\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"30 - 7\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21515581.2017.1419877\",\"citationCount\":\"12\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Trust Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2017.1419877\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Trust Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2017.1419877","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

摘要

在当今的商业媒体上,CEO的违规行为是一个常见的故事情节。此类事件导致需要修复CEO和其领导的组织之间的信任。现有的关于信任修复的实证研究主要集中在人际信任上,由此产生的知识体系为犯错的CEO提供了许多见解,但对那些旨在修复组织信任的人却没有什么见解。由于组织也需要在CEO违规后重新获得利益相关者的信任,因此对组织信任修复的研究显然是有必要的。组织拥有个人无法获得的信任修复选项(例如,解雇违规者),这些行动可能由责任方以外的各方(例如董事会)发起,并且组织信任修复与人际信任修复的基础机制可能不同。然而,由于CEO是组织的象征性代表,对CEO及其相关组织的信任也可能是相互交织的。为了更好地理解组织和CEO如何在CEO违规后修复信任,我们进行了一个场景实验,研究了实践中常用的两种策略:解雇CEO,以及CEO道歉+忏悔。我们还研究了提出的潜在机制的感知忏悔和感知差异。结果表明,这两种策略都可以影响CEO和组织的信任,而感知到的忏悔和感知到的歧视会中介董事会反应对CEO信任的影响,但不会中介对组织信任的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Heads will roll! Routes to effective trust repair in the aftermath of a CEO transgression
ABSTRACT CEO transgressions are a common storyline in today's business press. Such incidents result in the need to repair trust for both the CEO and the organisation that the CEO leads. Existing empirical research on trust repair has focused primarily on interpersonal trust, resulting in a body of knowledge that provides many insights to the errant CEO but few insights for those who aim to repair trust in the organisation. Since organisations also need to regain the trust of stakeholders after a CEO transgression, research on organisational trust repair is clearly warranted. Organisations have options for trust repair that are not available to individuals (e.g. dismissing the transgressor), these actions may be initiated by parties other than the culpable party (e.g. the Board of Directors), and the mechanisms underlying organisational versus interpersonal trust repair may differ. However, trust in CEOs and their associated organisations may also be intertwined since the CEO is the symbolic representative of the organisation. To better understand how organisations and CEOs can repair trust in the aftermath of a CEO transgression, we conduct a scenario experiment examining two tactics that are commonly used in practice: CEO dismissal, and CEO apology + penance. We also examine the proposed underlying mechanisms of perceived repentance and perceived disentitativity. Results indicate that both tactics can influence trust in the CEO as well as the organisation, and that perceived repentance and perceived disentitativity mediate the effects of Board responses on trust in the CEO but not on trust in the organisation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
42.90%
发文量
9
期刊介绍: As an inter-disciplinary and cross-cultural journal dedicated to advancing a cross-level, context-rich, process-oriented, and practice-relevant journal, JTR provides a focal point for an open dialogue and debate between diverse researchers, thus enhancing the understanding of trust in general and trust-related management in particular, especially in its organizational and social context in the broadest sense. Through both theoretical development and empirical investigation, JTR seeks to open the "black-box" of trust in various contexts.
期刊最新文献
Trust and distrust in public governance settings: Conceptualising and testing the link in regulatory relations. Capturing the conversation of trust research On the intricate relationship between data and theory, and the potential gain afforded by capturing very low levels of media trust: Commentary on Mangold (2024) Is security still the chiefest enemy? The challenges and contradictions in European confidence- and security-building in the Cold War Police legitimacy in the making: the underlying social forces for police legitimacy among religious communities
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1