IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eurman/v37y2019i1p58-66.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A strategic action fields perspective on organizational trust repair

Author

Listed:
  • Bozic, Branko
  • Siebert, Sabina
  • Martin, Graeme

Abstract

While the extant literature on organizational trust repair has considered the agency and trust repair actions of individual organizations, it has neglected repair following trust-damaging events affecting specific industries. Drawing on the theory of strategic action fields we ask two research questions: (1) How do reputational scandals involving a few transgressing firms affect trust in the whole institutional field? (2) Do the transgressing firms repair trust in the same way as the blameless ones in the same field? To answer these questions we investigated four cases of retail organizations that engaged in trust repair actions following a food safety scandal, two widely held to have transgressed, and two that were held to be relatively blameless. We compared the trust repair strategies of both groups, finding that even the blameless organizations felt compelled to act to repair trust. However, blameless organizations also sought to differentiate themselves from the transgressing ones by using specific strategies to restore trust.

Suggested Citation

  • Bozic, Branko & Siebert, Sabina & Martin, Graeme, 2019. "A strategic action fields perspective on organizational trust repair," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 58-66.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eurman:v:37:y:2019:i:1:p:58-66
    DOI: 10.1016/j.emj.2018.04.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263237318300513
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.emj.2018.04.005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bozic, Branko, 2017. "Consumer trust repair: A critical literature review," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 538-547.
    2. Michael Pirson & Deepak Malhotra, 2011. "Foundations of Organizational Trust: What Matters to Different Stakeholders?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 1087-1104, August.
    3. Jay B. Barney & Mark H. Hansen, 1994. "Trustworthiness as a Source of Competitive Advantage," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(S1), pages 175-190, December.
    4. Gillespie, Nicole & Dietz, Graham & Lockey, Steve, 2014. "Organizational Reintegration and Trust Repair after an Integrity Violation: A Case Study," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(3), pages 371-410, July.
    5. Fligstein, Neil, 2001. "Social Skill and the Theory of Fields," Center for Culture, Organizations and Politics, Working Paper Series qt26m187b1, Center for Culture, Organizations and Politics of theInstitute for Research on Labor and Employment, UC Berkeley.
    6. Williamson, Oliver E, 1993. "Calculativeness, Trust, and Economic Organization," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 36(1), pages 453-486, April.
    7. Martha S. Feldman, 2000. "Organizational Routines as a Source of Continuous Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(6), pages 611-629, December.
    8. Kurt T. Dirks & Donald L. Ferrin, 2001. "The Role of Trust in Organizational Settings," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(4), pages 450-467, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Robert Hurley, 2023. "An Organizational Capacity for Trustworthiness: A Dynamic Routines Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 188(3), pages 589-601, December.
    2. Gen Li & Xixiang Sun, 2022. "The Impact of Green Brand Crises on Green Brand Trust: An Empirical Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-19, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kougiannou, Nadia K. & O'Meara Wallis, Matthew, 2020. "‘Chimneys don't belch out carnations!’ The (in)tolerance of corporate hypocrisy: A case study of trust and community engagement strategies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 348-362.
    2. Kähkönen, T. & Blomqvist, K. & Gillespie, N. & Vanhala, M., 2021. "Employee trust repair: A systematic review of 20 years of empirical research and future research directions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 98-109.
    3. Bozic, Branko & Kuppelwieser, Volker G., 2019. "Customer trust recovery: An alternative explanation," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 208-218.
    4. Ranjay Gulati & Jack A. Nickerson, 2008. "Interorganizational Trust, Governance Choice, and Exchange Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(5), pages 688-708, October.
    5. Robert Hurley, 2023. "An Organizational Capacity for Trustworthiness: A Dynamic Routines Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 188(3), pages 589-601, December.
    6. Brühl, Rolf & Basel, Jörn S. & Kury, Max F., 2018. "Communication after an integrity-based trust violation: How organizational account giving affects trust," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 161-170.
    7. Wang, Chun-Ju & Wu, Lei-Yu, 2012. "Team member commitments and start-up competitiveness," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(5), pages 708-715.
    8. Ranjay Gulati & Maxim Sytch, 2008. "Does familiarity breed trust? Revisiting the antecedents of trust," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(2-3), pages 165-190.
    9. Chawla, Chetan, 2020. "Trust in blockchains: Algorithmic and organizational," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 14(C).
    10. Bill McEvily & Vincenzo Perrone & Akbar Zaheer, 2003. "Trust as an Organizing Principle," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(1), pages 91-103, February.
    11. repec:clg:wpaper:2008-22 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Misani, Nicola, 2020. "Sustainability and Implicit Contracts," MPRA Paper 104963, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Maurizio Massaro & Andrea Moro & Ewald Aschauer & Matthias Fink, 2019. "Trust, control and knowledge transfer in small business networks," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 267-301, April.
    14. Nilsson, Magnus & Mattes, Jannika, 2015. "The spatiality of trust: Factors influencing the creation of trust and the role of face-to-face contacts," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 230-244.
    15. Dobos, Imre & Gelei, Andrea, 2016. "Bizalom az üzleti kapcsolatokban. A diadikus adatelemzés egy alkalmazása [Trust in business relations - an application of dyadic data analysis]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(3), pages 330-349.
    16. Yan, Aimin & Gray, Barbara, 2001. "Negotiating control and achieving performance in international joint ventures: A conceptual model," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 295-315.
    17. Božič, Branko & Siebert, Sabina & Martin, Graeme, 2020. "A grounded theory study of factors and conditions associated with customer trust recovery in a retailer," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 440-448.
    18. Oliver Schilke & Karen S. Cook, 2015. "Sources of alliance partner trustworthiness: Integrating calculative and relational perspectives," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(2), pages 276-297, February.
    19. Delbufalo, Emanuela, 2015. "Subjective trust and perceived risk influences on exchange performance in supplier–manufacturer relationships," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 84-101.
    20. Levine, Emma E. & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2015. "Prosocial lies: When deception breeds trust," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 88-106.
    21. Michael Pirson & Deepak Malhotra, 2011. "Foundations of Organizational Trust: What Matters to Different Stakeholders?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 1087-1104, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:eurman:v:37:y:2019:i:1:p:58-66. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/115/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.