Apologies for Cross-Postings…
The fourth workshop of FINT (the First International Network on Trust) will
be in Amsterdam 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, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, USA
Antoinette Weibel, University of Zurich, Switzerland
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. Toyota is very likely to surpass its last
competitor GM for world market leadership because Toyota 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 Amsterdam!
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