Organization and Management Theory OMT

The fourth workshop of FINT (the First International Network on Trust) will be in <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Amsterdam</st1:place></st1:city> on Thursday and Friday, October 25-26, 2007, hosted by Free University Amsterdam and co-organized by EIASM. As in previous FINT workshops, the number of participants will be restricted to about 100, with a broad variety of backgrounds expected again, given that participants came from 24 countries in the 2005 workshop. So this is a truly international event.

We are pleased to announce a SPECIAL SESSION on:

MISALLOCATED TRUST: CAUSES, PROCESSES AND CONSEQUENCES

CHAIRS : Richard Priem, <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee</st1:city>, <st1:country-region w:st="on">USA</st1:country-region></st1:place>

Antoinette Weibel, <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">University of Zurich</st1:city>, <st1:country-region w:st="on">Switzerland</st1:country-region></st1:place> 

CALL FOR PAPERS:

“…a group within which there is extensive trustworthiness and extensive trust is able to accomplish much more than a comparable group without that trustworthiness and trust” (Coleman, 1988, p.101).

Consequently, trust facilitates effective action. But at either extreme for Coleman’s exemplar groups, the level of trust is properly aligned with the degree of trustworthiness among group members. When such matches occur between trust and trustworthiness, it is relatively easy to see that effective action might be facilitated by trust or thwarted by distrust.

Yet what of those situations when trust is misallocated, at the individual, group, organization or societal level, or across levels? Specifically, what happens when trust is given to those individuals, groups, organizations or institutions that are untrustworthy, or when it is denied to those that are trustworthy?

Evidence of the former case – wherein trust is granted to those who are untrustworthy – is seen quite often in the research on managerial fraud and in the popular press. Typical accounts describe intentional wrongdoing, for either personal or corporate gain, involving acts such as embezzlement, insider trading, fraud, misrepresentation, or swindling customers. Companies such as Enron, WorldCom and Tyco have become infamous as examples of misplaced trust in top executives.

The latter case – wherein there is distrust of those who are trustworthy – is reported less frequently but may occur just as often. Misplaced distrust seems to be plaguing inter-organizational co-operations quite often. For example the lack of trust in their suppliers seems to come at a high cost for US automobile producers. <st1:city w:st="on">Toyota</st1:city> is very likely to surpass its last competitor GM for world market leadership because <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Toyota</st1:place></st1:city> has managed to build trusting relationships with the same suppliers that are locked in deep distrust with Ford and GM. Another potential area of misalignment between distrust and trustworthiness threatening firm’s survival might unfold in the battle for brainpower. Those companies which fail to communicate their trustworthiness as an employer could miss to attract the best and the brightest.

Thus, the central theme underlying this track involves those “off-diagonal” instances where trust and trustworthiness are misaligned. Submissions are invited which examine the antecedents, dynamics, processes and/or outcomes of misalignments between trust and trustworthiness. Contributions may focus on misalignments occurring at the individual, group, organization, institutional or societal levels, or across multiple levels, and they may focus on either excessive (i.e. unwarranted) trust or distrust. In addition to empirical research, we are calling for and encouraging conceptual and theoretical papers, and insightful reviews of existing relevant theory and research. Multi-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary contributions are encouraged, including contributions from psychology, sociology, organizational behavior and theory, critical management, political science, and economics.

Possible research issues and questions include:

• What factors affect the likelihood of a misalignment occurring between trust and trustworthiness? Do these factors differ at different levels of analysis, or across levels?
• What factors affect the difference in speed and degree of alignment between trust and trustworthiness? For example which factors contribute to an “undue” striving for unanimity which overrides motivation to realistically appraise trustworthiness? Which factors contribute to irrational distrust and paranoia?
• In which way are trustworthiness (as characteristics of a person/group/institution) and perceived trustworthiness linked? How do different stakeholders perceive trustworthiness? How are these singular perspectives transformed into a more coherent picture of top management/firm/group trustworthiness?
• How might the untrustworthy “fake” trustworthiness and build legitimacy? How can the trustworthy signal their positive intent? What signs or signals allow determining who is trustworthy?
• What processes take place when a trust–trustworthiness misalignment is discovered in a relationship? Can a categorization/typology of likely processes be developed? How might these processes differ across levels of analysis?
• Under what conditions do organizations “normalize” either a) their own trustworthy or untrustworthy behavior, or b) trust or distrust of others? How might this affect the likelihood of developing an appropriate match between trust and trustworthiness in new relationships?
• Under what conditions can actions to address a misalignment between trust and trustworthiness widen/narrow the gap? For example controls and safeguards are often applied if trust was misplaced. These “remedies” however may backfire and aggravate the problem by promoting vicious cycles and by corrupting trustworthiness.
• What are the consequences of trust–trustworthiness misalignments, and what specific mechanisms lead to these consequences? How can negative consequences be minimized?
• What are the costs of trust-trustworthiness misalignments? Specifically what are the costs of forgone opportunities, excessive negotiating and overinvestment in safeguards due to misplaced distrust? What are the costs of betrayal and fraud due to misplaced trust? Under what conditions a possible business relationship should be best started prudent with a bias to trust rather than cautious with a bias to suspicion?
• Is the likelihood of a trust–trustworthiness misalignment greater in cross-cultural relationships? Are the antecedents, processes, mechanisms, and consequences of misalignment different for cross-border, cross-cultural relationships such as international strategic alliances?

Authors intending to participate are requested to upload an 800-1000 words abstract of their work by

May 21, 2007

By June 20 they will receive a notification of acceptance/rejection.
Final papers of 6.000-10.000 words and 1,5 spacing should be uploaded at this website by September 24 2007.

The following information is required in the abstract:
- Title of paper.
- Name, academic affiliation(s) and address of author(s).
- E-mail address of each author.

Below is the link to the website of EIASM, where other FINT calls for papers can be found and the abstracts and final papers must be uploaded.
 
http://www.eiasm.org/frontoffice/event_announcement.asp?event_id=495

We hope to welcome you in <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Amsterdam</st1:place></st1:city>!

Richard

Richard L. Priem, Ph.D.
The Robert L. & Sally S. Manegold Professor
of Management and Strategic Planning
Faculty Director, M&I Marshall & Ilsley Corporation Center
for Business Ethics
Sheldon B. Lubar School of Business
The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
P.O. Box 742, Milwaukee, WI 53201
Phone: 414-229-6865  Fax: 414-229-5999
Web: http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/Business/faculty/sbafaculty/priem.html