Please download to get full document.

View again

of 217
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.

Spiritual/ Inspirational

Publish on:

Views: 14 | Pages: 217

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

UNIVERSIDAD DE GRANADA FACULTAD DE CIENCIAS ECONÓMICAS Y EMPRESARIALES Departamento de Organización de Empresas LA INFLUENCIA DE LA CONFIANZA EN LA GESTIÓN EMPRESARIAL Presentada por: Blanca Luisa Delgado Márquez Dirigida por: Dr. D. J. Alberto Aragón Correa Dra. Dña. Nuria Esther Hurtado Torres Granada, Febrero 2010 Editor: Editorial de la Universidad de Granada Autor: Blanca Luisa Delgado Márquez D.L.: GR ISBN: UNIVERSIDAD DE GRANADA FACULTAD DE CIENCIAS ECONÓMICAS Y EMPRESARIALES Departamento de Organización de Empresas LA INFLUENCIA DE LA CONFIANZA EN LA GESTIÓN EMPRESARIAL THE INFLUENCE OF TRUST ON MANAGEMENT Presentada por Blanca Luisa Delgado Márquez para optar al título de Doctor en Ciencias Económicas Granada, Febrero de 2010 Trust is the glue that holds everything together, the bond that creates healthy communities and successful businesses Swab & Malleret (2003) A mis padres Agradecimientos No quisiera dar por terminada esta Memoria sin antes manifestar mi mayor gratitud a todas aquellas personas que me han apoyado en todo momento con su continuo ánimo y estímulo. En primer lugar, quiero expresar mi más profundo agradecimiento a los directores del presente trabajo, Dr. D. J. Alberto Aragón Correa y Dra. Dña. Nuria Esther Hurtado Torres, por su imprescindible ayuda, plasmada en innumerables sesiones de trabajo, y por su infatigable labor de mejora continua de esta Memoria. Ellos me han guiado en este viaje y de ellos he aprendido muchísimo. A los Directores de los Departamentos de Organización de Empresas y Economía Internacional y de España de la Universidad de Granada. A todos mis compañeros del Grupo de Investigación ISDE y especialmente a su director, Dr. D. J. Alberto Aragón Correa. A mis amigas y amigos, por su incondicional apoyo. Y por último a mi familia, que nunca me ha fallado. GENERAL INDEX CHAPTER 1: Introduction 1.1. Overview Delimitation of trust in management Delimitation Trust is neither cooperation nor predictability Trust, risk, and control systems Trust versus trustworthiness Relationship between trust and management Structure of the dissertation References...13 CHAPTER 2: Environmental progresses when financial implications are not the aim: the importance of trust in stakeholders on deciding the integration of sustainability into management education Introduction Theoretical background: Trust The context Sustainability and management education Sustainability and financial performance in our context Hypotheses I The influence of stakeholders trustworthiness in the decision to integrate sustainability into management education courses Perception of stakeholders ability Perception of stakeholders benevolence The decision-makers interest in the economic objectives of their Organization The direct influence The moderating influence Methodology Sample Measures Results Discussion, limitations, future research and implications Discussion Limitations and future research Implications For Practitioners (Including Managers Of Management Education) References CHAPTER 3: The influence of the initial and the experiential knowledge on trusting outcomes Introduction Trust and trusting outcomes Delimitation of trust Trusting outcomes: Betrayal, reciprocity and reward...73 II 3.3. Hypotheses Methodology and measures Experimental procedures Measures Results Discussion, implications, limitations, and future research Discussion Implications Limitations and future research agenda References CHAPTER 4: The dynamic nature of trust transfer and the influence of learning Introduction Key concepts and research hypotheses development Key concepts Trust, trust transfer, and personal trusting history The dynamic nature of trust transfer: The influence of learning Methodology Experimental procedures Measures Results Discussion, implications, limitations, and future research Discussion Implications.133 III Limitations an future research agenda References Appendix A: Properties of the trust transfer index Appendix B: Building process of the trust transfer reciprocation index Appendix C: Properties of the trust transfer reciprocation index..148 CHAPTER 5: Conclusions, implications, limitations and future research Conclusions Conclusions of chapter Conclusions of chapter Conclusions of chapter Implications Implications for academics Implications of chapter Implications of chapter Implications of chapter Implications for managers Implications of chapter Implications of chapter Implications of chapter Implications for regulators Implications of chapter Implications of chapter Implications of chapter Limitations..163 IV 5.4. Future research agenda References..166 REFERENCES RESUMEN Y CONCLUSIONES.199 V INDEX OF TABLES AND FIGURES CHAPTER 2: Environmental progresses when financial implications are not the aim: the importance of trust in stakeholders on deciding the integration of sustainability into management education Figure 1: Research model proposed...26 Table 1: Means, standard deviations, and confidence interval for the deans samples...34 Table 2: ANOVA for the deans data Table 3: Means, standard deviations, and correlations 48 Table 4: Results of the hierarchical moderated multiple linear regression analysis...49 CHAPTER 3: The influence of the initial and the experiential knowledge on trusting outcomes Table 1: Descriptive statistics for the trustors trusting behavior in the first and second rounds..83 Table 2: ANOVA for the trustors trusting behavior in the first and second rounds.. 84 Table 3: Chi-Square tests.85 Table 4: Model fitting information..85 VII Table 5: Likelihood ratio tests.86 Table 6: Parameter estimates...86 CHAPTER 4: The dynamic nature of trust transfer and the influence of learning Figure 1: Extensive form of the trust game Table 1: Parameter estimates. 128 Table 2: Contrast results 128 Table 3: Estimates.129 Table 4: Means, standard deviations, and correlations..129 Table 5: Results of the hierarchical moderated multiple regression analysis 130 VIII CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1. Overview During the last decades, trust has become a major concept in social sciences, such as psychology (Johnson-George & Swap, 1982; Rotter, 1967; 1980), philosophy (Baier, 1986), sociology (Barber, 1983; Luhmann, 1979; Shapiro, 1987), economics (Arrow, 1974; Williamson, 1975), and organization theory (Zand, 1972; Zucker, 1986). Economists look at trust as either calculative (Williamson, 1993) or institutional (North, 1990). Personality psychologists traditionally have viewed trust as an individual characteristic (Rotter, 1971; 1980). Social psychologists have defined trust as an expectation about the behavior of others in transactions, focusing on the contextual factors that enhance or inhibit the development and maintenance of trust (Lewicki & Bunker, 1995). Sociologists investigate how socially embedded properties of relationships among people (Granovetter, 1985) or institutions (Zucker, 1986) are created to reduce the anxiety and uncertainty (and, thus, increase trust) associated with transactions among relative strangers. Independently of the discipline, a trust relationship is made up of two agents: the trusting party (the trustor) and a party to be trusted (the trustee). Nonetheless, not every interaction between two parties involves trust. There are two necessary conditions for trust to emerge. Risk is the first condition, and it is considered as pivotal in Chapter 1. Introduction psychological, sociological, and economical conceptualizations of the term trust (Coleman, 1990; Rotter, 1967; Williamson, 1993). Risk is defined as the perceived probability of loss from the perspective of the decider (Chiles & McMackin, 1996; MacCrimmon & Wehrung, 1986). Trust would be unnecessary if the decisions could be undertaken without risk (Lewis & Weigert, 1985). Uncertainty regarding whether the other intends to and will act appropriately is the source of risk. And the second necessary condition is the interdependence between both parts involved in a trust relationship. According to this condition, the interests of one party cannot be achieved without relying on the other. The nature of risk and trust changes as interdependence increases (Sheppard & Sherman, 1998). Degrees of interdependence influence the form that trust may take; for instance, the nature of trust a firm puts in temporary workers is quite different from the trust associated to core and veteran employees. 2. Delimitation Of Trust In Management 2.1 Delimitation Several definitions of trust have been presented across disciplines. However, there is no commonly accepted definition of trust yet. Regardless of the discipline, confident expectations and willingness to be vulnerable are usually pivotal components of the definitions proposed (McKnight, Cummings, & Chervany, 1998; Mishra & Spreitzer, 1998; Jones & George, 1998). Nonetheless, there have been certain definitions, whose influence on the literature about trust and management has been bigger than others. Mayer, Davis & Schoorman (1995) defined trust as the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to 2 Chapter 1. Introduction monitor or control that other party. This definition introduces vulnerability. Being vulnerable (Boss, 1978; Zand, 1972) implies that there is something of importance to be lost. Making oneself vulnerable is taking risk. Trust is not taking risk per se, but rather it is a willingness to take risk (Mayer et al, 1995). Later, alternative definitions have been presented. Focused on a mathematical perspective and adopting a definition centred on outcomes, Bhattacharya, Devinney & Pillutla (1998) proposed that trust is an expectancy of positive (or nonnegative) outcomes that one can receive based on the expected action of another party in an interaction characterized by uncertainty. However, this definition, while interesting for analyzing trust from a mathematical and statistical perspective, does not include the possibility of trusting an agent on a different basis than expected benefits and costs. While it is true that this approach can help explaining certain trusting behaviors, there are many situations where trust is not solely guided by this calculative definition. Hence, Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt & Camerer (1998) proposed that trust is a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another. Their definition includes not only the possibility of trust based on calculus of outcomes, but also the willingness to accept vulnerability, incorporated from Mayer et al s (1995) definition. Therefore, trust, as the willingness to be vulnerable under conditions of risk and interdependence, is a psychological state that researchers in various disciplines interpret in terms of perceived probabilities (Bhattacharya et al, 1998), confidence, and positive expectations (Jones & George, 1998; Hagen & Choe, 1998; Das & Teng, 1998). We find that Rousseau et al s (1998) definition is very complete and covers a wide set of situations where trust can be involved. Thus, we adopt their definition of trust to 3 Chapter 1. Introduction develop the three papers that form the second, third, and fourth chapters of this dissertation Trust Is Neither Cooperation Nor Predictability While trust has received attention in the literature since several decades, it has been often confused -and used as synonyms- with other terms, such as cooperation and predictability. Gambetta (1988) stated that trusting someone means the probability that he will perform an action that is beneficial or at least not detrimental to us is high enough for us to consider engaging in some form of cooperation with him. In his definition, the distinction between trust and cooperation is not clear. Although trust often leads to cooperative behavior, trust is not a necessary condition for cooperation to arise, since cooperation does not necessarily put a party at risk. For instance, an employee can cooperate and even look like if he would trust- with another employee. If there are external control mechanisms that will punish the trustee for deceitful behavior, if the issue at hand does not involve vulnerability to the trustor over issues that matter, or if it is clear that the trustee's motives will lead him to behave in a way that coincides with the trustor's desires, then there can be cooperation without trust. In each of these cases, vulnerability is minimal or absent (Mayer et al, 1995). Furthermore, trust and predictability are not equivalent. There exists a relationship between them, since both trust and predictability are means of uncertainty reduction (Lewis & Weigert, 1985). However, both terms have often been confused in the literature. For instance, Gabarro (1978) defined trust as the extent to which one person can expect predictability in the other's behavior in terms of what is `normally expected of a person acting in good faith. Another party's predictability is insufficient to make a 4 Chapter 1. Introduction person willing to take a risk. To equate the two is to suggest that a party who can be expected to consistently ignore the needs of others and act in a self-interested fashion is therefore trusted, because the party is predictable. What is missing in that approach is the willingness to take a risk in the relationship and to be vulnerable Trust, Risk And Control Systems The existence of risk and the interdependence are two necessary conditions for the emergence of trust. One of the most problematic areas in the literature about trust and management was the lack of clarity in the relationship between risk and control until the middle of the nineties. Regarding the relationship between these two variables, Mayer et al (1995) proposed that trust would lead to risk taking in a trust relationship. In the early beginning of the literature of trust in management, researchers have claimed for the necessity to develop mechanisms minimizing the risk involved in working relationships. Control systems are an alternative mechanism for dealing with risk in relationships. In order to avoid self-serving behaviors as well as potential litigation, many firms utilize control mechanisms and contracts, and they change their decision-making processes, internal processes, reward systems, and structures (Jensen & Meckling, 1976; Meyer, 1983; Sitkin & Bies, 1994; Williamson, 1975). Legalistic remedies have been described as weak, impersonal substitutes for trust (Sitkin & Roth, 1993), which may bring organizational legitimacy, yet often are ineffective (Argyris, 1994; Donaldson & Davis, 1991; Granovetter, 1985; Sitkin & Roth, 1993). Recently, several scholars have speculated about the relationship between trust and control systems in dealing with risk (McEvily, Perrone & Zaheer, 2003; Sitkin & George, 2005). However, trust and control systems are not mutually excluding mechanisms. When the level of risk is bigger than the level of trust (and thus, the level 5 Chapter 1. Introduction of willingness to take a risk), a control system can bridge the difference by lowering the level of risk to a threshold which can be managed by trust (Schoorman, Mayer & Davis, 2007). However, it is important to note that the existence of a too strong control system prevents the development of trust. In this context, few situations will have an inherent perceived risk attached, and the trust placed in the trustee will be attributed to the existence of the control system rather than to attributes of the trustee. The use of control systems is how agency theory proposes dealing with risk management, and this does not foster the development of trust Trust Versus Trustworthiness Prior studies have investigated why a given party has a greater or lesser amount of trust for another party. One approach is to consider attributes of the trustee. Some authors identify a single trustee characteristic that is responsible for trust (e.g., Strickland, 1958), whereas other authors describe as many as ten characteristics (e.g., Butler, 1991). Among all the characteristics addressed in the literature, three common elements appear in almost all works: ability, benevolence, and integrity. Ability is that group of skills, competencies, and characteristics that enable a party to have influence within some specific domain. The specificity of the domain is crucial in this definition, since an employee may be very keen with programming but may have a low ability for selling the product. Moreover, benevolence is the extent to which a trustee is believed to want to do good to the trustor. Finally, the relationship between integrity and trust involves the trustor's perception that the trustee adheres to a set of principles that the trustor finds acceptable (Mayer et al, 1995). Otherwise, the trustor will not find the trustee to have the integrity to be trusted. 6 Chapter 1. Introduction Moreover, these three dimensions can be applied to interpersonal, intergroup, or interorganizational levels of analysis (Schoorman et al, 2007). These three conditions lead the trustor to ascribe trustworthiness to the trustee. Trustworthiness is the antecedent of trust. 3. Relationship Between Trust And Management Since the common thread in all the chapters of the dissertation is trust, this section provides a summary about the evolution of the importance of trust in management. Trust was introduced as a construct of interest in the behavioral sciences fifty years ago (e.g., Deutsch, 1958). Since then, several researchers have established its pivotal role in relationships within and between organizations (Kramer & Tyler, 1996; Rousseau et al, 1998). The importance of trust has been cited in such areas as communication (Giffin, 1967), leadership (Atwater, 1988), management by objectives (Scott, 1980), negotiation (Bazerman, 1994), game theory (Milgrom & Roberts, 1992), performance appraisal (Cummings, 1983), labor-management relations (Taylor, 1989), complementarities between JIT purchasing practices (González-Benito, Suárez-González & Spring, 2000), and implementation of self-managed work teams (Lawler, 1992). Furthermore, during the last years more research on trust within organizations (Handy, 1995; Kramer & Tyler, 1996), between organizations (Moorman, Zaltman, & Deshpande, 1992), and in international affairs (Michalos, 1990) has been demanded. Therefore, trust proves to be crucial in a number of ways: it promotes cooperative behavior (Gambetta, 1988); encourages adaptive organizational forms, such as network relations (Miles & Snow, 1992); reduces harmful conflict, decreases transaction costs; facilitates rapid 7 Chapter 1. Introduction formulation of ad hoc work groups (Meyerson, Weick, & Kramer, 1996), and stimulates effective responses to crisis. In the middle of the nineties, an increasing interest for trust in management for the following years was forecasted by several researchers due to some observable reasons. First, the increasing diversity in the workforce composition of the United States. This trend implies that people with different personal backgrounds interact closely and effectively with each other. However, it was observed that a diverse workforce is less able to rely on interpersonal similarity and common background and experience to contribute to mutual attraction and enhance the willingness to work together (Berscheid & Walster, 1978; Newcomb, 1956). Thus, the development of mutual trust provides a useful mechanism for enabling employees work more effectively. And second, the changes in the organization of work. Lawler (1992) observed progressive changes in the workplace in the direction of more participative management styles and the implementation of work teams. The emergence of self-directed teams and a reliance on empowered w
Related Search
Similar documents
View more...
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!