Discussion: View Thread

Apologies for cross posting

'The Dynamics of Trust in Challenging Contexts'

Call for Papers

Building on our 2014 track which focused on the role of contexts, our attention here is on trust and its dynamics in risky situation where there is a threat to previous organisational trust. We will consider organisational trust in periods of change. Given our location, Greece, this is a very pertinent setting in which to examine the practices and impacts of trust dynamics from challenging contexts, in which change is a salient and at times dramatic issue that individuals to have to respond to.

We take our conceptualisation of 'change' to be very broad; we focus on key contexts and communities for whom organisational trust is being challenged. Therefore, on one hand we adopt a more traditional consideration of change in terms of the challenges organisations face in for example handling downsizing, mergers and acquisition, industry or country-level upheavals. We also include here turbulence as a result of challenges that have emerged sue to natural or man-made disasters, work–related trauma such as piracy or kidnap, and war. We explore whether and how trust can be maintained, reformed or lost during such periods of turbulence.

A second part of this call is to examine in organisational-trust in challenging contexts, such as social work or justice, and where organisational trust may, for example, be challenged for both users and staff by virtue of the imposition of programmes of change required from users. In this second type of context individual service users/clients have a change imposed upon them which might impact of staffs' change.

Finally, we invite papers which consider organisational and institutional-level trust for in the context of challenged, such as the Roma, for whom trust in institutions has always been difficult. Or those pertaining to  members of particular groups – such as women, minority, disability or sexual orientation for whom issues such as equality of opportunity challenges their institutional trust (Kulich, Trojanowski, Ryan, Alexander Haslam, & Renneboog, 2011). In this latter category of papers we also include attention age cohorts, where institutional trust is being threatened for new groups, such as young people, especially those with tertiary education whose currently lack access to economically viable employment. Concerns about this new threat to trust for previously engaged communities is reflected in current government initiatives due to the potential and serious economic and social long term implications.  

Change is often suggested to be the only constant; ubiquitous in nature and occurring at an increasing pace for organisations and those working within and between them (Balogun and Hope-Hailey, 2008). Change can arise from strategic development for an organisation producing significant structural and market shifts and realignments. It may be, however,  more restricted in its scope and  impact (Saunders & Thornhill, 2003). Its dynamic too can vary from incremental changes, to all-encompassing ongoing continuous dramatic transformations, or those which involve periods of periods of stability interspersed with others of significant changes (Burnes, 2009), what happens to trust in such a punctuated equilibrium (Gersick, 1991). The management of strategic change invariably produces uncertainty and vulnerability, which can often be problematic (McCalman and Paton, 1992). Change is often perceived as threatening (M. Fugate, Prussia, & Kinicki, 2012), with consequences in terms of more passive user/ employee withdrawal, including intentions to quit, voluntary turnover, absenteeism, or disengagement in the form of off-register Not in Education, Employment Training (NEETs) (Van Parys & Struyven, 2012); through to more active resistance, including counterproductive work behaviours, or terrorism; but it might also produce positive outcomes, (Mel. Fugate, 2013), including pockets of supportive and active enabling behaviours which make some groups in organisations more resilient and able to almost thrive during such periods of turbulence (e.g. Dawkins, Martin, Scott, & Sanderson, 2013; Waugh, Fredrickson, & Taylor, 2008)? Some contexts have created previous negative experienced with further rounds of injustice (Dhenka-Kahlon & Coyle-Shapiro, 2013) and trust breach anticipated.

We invite contributions that provide insight into change as a context for studying forms, meanings, dynamics and/or processes of organizational and institutional trust. In line with our Standing Working Group (SWG) 02, the focus is on trust at the organizational and institutional level, as well as the dynamic interplay of trust between levels. We encourage papers that examine the influence of a range of contextual variables, including but not limited to: clashes between communities, national and organizational cultures, legal frameworks, institutional forms, socio-economic factors, power and vulnerability, historical and temporal influences, etc. This sub-theme aims to shed light on the causes and consequences of these differences and consider and identify to what extend there are strategies which would promote better management and integration of change for trust-based vertical and horizontal relationships within and across borders.

Below are some indicative questions:

·         If change is so ubiquitous, how can we develop more resilient employees and citizens who are better prepared and able to cope with continual upheavals? Can we make change more predictable as a means of preventing trust breach? Is there something about current context that is altering confidence and /or vulnerability in societies?

·         How does change impact on trust during highly turbulent economic, political, organizational, or societal environments? For example, is the current austerity programmes creating new and different trust challenges for both employees and service users/clients? Are the organisational trust challenges distinct or similar for these distinct groups?

·         What types dynamic of change have the least and greatest impact? For example, is externally imposed change preferable to internally created impetus? How can trust be restored following periods of emergency, such as war or environmental catastrophe? What can be done to alter the impact for trust?

·          

·         What are the consequences of change for organisational and institutional trust? Do previous models of change help? Or is the current pace and relentlessness of change producing unforeseen spill over effects which are amplifying trust violations?

·         Do impersonal forms of trust matter more in a period of dynamic change, or is an interpersonal-basis central?

·         Under which circumstances is identification-based trust affected? What are the consequences of deep levels of trust being eroded?

·         Are there some communities where trust needs to be built in order to prevent further economic threat?

·          

 http://www.egosnet.org/jart/prj3/egos/main.jart?rel=de&reserve-mode=active&content-id=1392376003637&subtheme_id=1368705988013

References

Convenors:

Prof. Rosalind Searle, Coventry University, UK, Email: rosalind.searle@coventry.ac.uk

Prof. Reinhard Bachmann, University of Surrey, UK, Email: r.bachmann@surrey.ac.uk

Dr. Shay Tzafrir University of Haifa. Email: stzafrir@research.haifa.ac.il

For more background information, see: http://www.OrganisationalTrust.org

Balogun, J. and Hope-Hailey, V. (2008). Exploring Strategic Change (3^rd edn.)  Harlow: FT Prentice Hall.

Burnes, B. (2009). Managing Change (5^th edn.) Harlow: FT Prentice Hall.

Dawkins, S., Martin, A., Scott, J., & Sanderson, K. (2013). Building on the positives: A psychometric review and critical analysis of the construct of Psychological Capital. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86(3), 348-370. doi: 10.1111/joop.12007

Dhenka-Kahlon, R., & Coyle-Shapiro, J. (2013). Anticipatory (in) justice and organizational change: understanding employee reactions to change. In S. Oreg, A. Michel & R. Todnem (Eds.), The Psychology of Organizational Change: Viewing Change from the Employee's Perspective (pp. 173 - 194). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Fugate, M. (2013). Capturing the positive experience of change: Antecedents, processes, and consequences. In S. Oreg, A. Michel & R. Todnem (Eds.), The Psychology of Organizational Change: Viewing Change from the Employee's Perspective (pp. 15): Cambridge University Press.

Fugate, M., Prussia, G. E., & Kinicki, A. J. (2012). Managing Employee Withdrawal During Organizational Change: The Role of Threat  Appraisal. Journal of Management, 38(3), 890-914.

Gersick, C. (1991). Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 10-36.

Kulich, C., Trojanowski, G., Ryan, M. K., Alexander Haslam, S., & Renneboog, L. D. R. (2011). Who gets the carrot and who gets the stick? Evidence of gender disparities in executive remuneration. Strategic Management Journal, 32(3), 301-321.

Saunders, M. N. K., & Thornhill, A. (2003). Organisational justice, trust and the management of change - An exploration. Personnel Review, 32(3), 360-375.

Van Parys, L., & Struyven, L. (2012). Withdrawal from the public employment service by young unemployed: a matter of non-take-up or of non-compliance? How non-profit social work initiatives may inspire public services. European Journal of Social Work, 1-19. doi: 10.1080/13691457.2012.724387

Waugh, C., Fredrickson, B., & Taylor, S. (2008). Adapting to life's slings and arrows: Individual differences in resilience when recovering from an anticipated threat. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(4), 1031-1046.

Best wishes

Ros

Prof. Rosalind Searle Ph.D. MBA,  Registered Psychologist (Occupational), Chartered Psychologist, Ast. Fellow BPS 

skype rossearle

twitter ProfSearle 

POSTAL ADDRESS – Coventry University, Centre for Trust, Peace and Social Relations

Innovation Village Building No. 5

Cheetah Road

Coventry

CV1 2TL

Latest publications:

Searle, R.H., Erdogan, B., Peiró, J. M., Klehe, U-C. (2014) What We Know about Youth Employment: Research Summary and Best Practices. Alliances for Psychology, SIOP, EAWOP White Paper Series. forthcoming)

Searle, R.H., and Legood. A. (2014). Trust Boards and governance:  Composition and Behavioural Styles. Chapter in Implementing Culture Change within the NHS: Contributions from Occupational Psychology.  British Psychological Society's Division of Occupational Psychology (DOP). Occupational Psychology in Public Policy. (forthcoming). Launch at Westminster 6^th Nov.

Nienaber, A., Romeike, P., Searle, R.H. and Schewe, G. (2014). What makes the glue sticky? A qualitative meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of trust in supervisor-subordinate relationships, Journal of Managerial Psychology forthcoming  

Nienaber, A., M. Hofeditz, and R.H. Searle. (2014) Do regulations play a significant role in the financial sector? Results of a meta-analysis. Special issue 'Building Trust In Financial Services' International Journal of Bank Marketing